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.
The only thing I'm equating is the notion of sexual orientation being a trait that we are born with and therefore deserving of equal rights. The only thing you are doing here is trying to justify why you don't approve of certain orientations. You want me to believe that it is immoral to discriminate based on sexual orientations. Oh wait, you mean ONLY those orientations that you approve of.
Being gay was at one time against the law. (and not something I would have supported, btw) I seriously doubt you would be making the same argument back then.
But ois not the same reason to oppose same sex marriage as being immoral the same reason to oppose the homosexual sex act? It is good that you do not support making same sex illegal however I have a little trouble understanding how when the Bible makes the act immoral it is silent on the marriage whereas you appear to be the opposite. If you explain why that is I would appreaciate it.
The only thing I'm equating is the notion of sexual orientation being a trait that we are born with and therefore deserving of equal rights. The only thing you are doing here is trying to justify why you don't approve of certain orientations. You want me to believe that it is immoral to discriminate based on sexual orientations. Oh wait, you mean ONLY those orientations that you approve of.
Being gay was at one time against the law. (and not something I would have supported, btw) I seriously doubt you would be making the same argument back then.
You see Jeff, the difference between you and I, is that I can see the difference between homosexuality and things like incest and bestiality. Incest and bestiality would both be causing harm. Not to mention that pesky little thing called consent. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. The fact that you continue to play ignorant to that just proves you are dishonest.
It has nothing to do with discriminating against "sexual orientation", and everything to do with the fact that certain things cause harm. It also has nothing to do with things I "approve of". I don't "approve" of homosexuality any more so than heterosexuality or bisexuality or asexuality. If it is between CONSENTING ADULTS, then I can see no issue. Same with marriage. If two gay men want to get married, who cares? Why do you care? Are you being forced to marry a gay man? Are you being forced to watch them get married? Watch them have sex?
In other words Jeff, if it causes no harm, and it is between consenting adult humans, then there is no problem. Your only issue is that you want to legislate who can get married based off of your interpretation of an outdated book. This is YOUR issue, and not a concern for the good ole USofA. Get over it.
But ois not the same reason to oppose same sex marriage as being immoral the same reason to oppose the homosexual sex act? It is good that you do not support making same sex illegal however I have a little trouble understanding how when the Bible makes the act immoral it is silent on the marriage whereas you appear to be the opposite. If you explain why that is I would appreaciate it.
Thanks.
I believe the act is sin, but I also believe God gave us a free will to live our lives however we want so I certainty don't have a right to demand people live a certain standard.
Same sex marriage is different because you are bringing an immoral lifestyle into a religious institution and forcing Christians to accept it. And spare me the argument that churches and Christians are not being forced to accept SSM. The push has already happened in the past. I have no doubt that it will happen again in the future under the banner of discrimination:
Quote:
"If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party," states an eight-page document from the city's Human Relations Commission that explains the law. Churches can choose to be exempt from the law, but only if they stop renting to the public and rent only to their members.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,966,663 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Christ never supported sin. He spoke quite harshly against it.
Do you believe in keeping slaves is a sin? Jesus seemed to have no problem with slavery.
Quote:
So then I suppose you support equal rights for those who practice incest, pologamy, or had the misfortune of being born with a sexual orientation to desire animals or minors, right? Or does it just suck to be them?
Although I don't get many sexual preferences and practices, if consenting adults are involved, is it any body else's business what those preferences and practices are?
You see Jeff, the difference between you and I, is that I can see the difference between homosexuality and things like incest and bestiality. Incest and bestiality would both be causing harm. Not to mention that pesky little thing called consent. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. The fact that you continue to play ignorant to that just proves you are dishonest.
No, the difference between you and I is that I can see the harm in ANY type of sexual activity outside of God's plan. Homosexual activity certainly causes harm. HIV statistics prove that as fact no matter how much you want to dance around it. The consent argument certainly is pesky because it is the only way you can stubbornly refuse to address the hypocrisy of claiming sexual orientation discrimination is just fine for certain types. Besides, people can be consenting in incestual relationships, and how do you know an animal does not give consent? Because they don't speak? Aren't we just animals too? What happened to all that evolution argument about how other animals can communicate quite well with each other? A person who is prone to such activities but never dares act out on them is still discriminated against. Consent doesn't even play a role in that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
It has nothing to do with discriminating against "sexual orientation", and everything to do with the fact that certain things cause harm. It also has nothing to do with things I "approve of". I don't "approve" of homosexuality any more so than heterosexuality or bisexuality or asexuality. If it is between CONSENTING ADULTS, then I can see no issue. Same with marriage. If two gay men want to get married, who cares? Why do you care? Are you being forced to marry a gay man? Are you being forced to watch them get married? Watch them have sex?
Simply cut and paste in some type of sinful activity that you don't approve of and see how that argument works. Who cares?? Well I care especially if churches are going to be forced to allow immoral ceremonies in the house of God. I wouldn't want to see a swinger's convention be hosted there either.
I believe the act is sin, but I also believe God gave us a free will to live our lives however we want so I certainty don't have a right to demand people live a certain standard.
Same sex marriage is different because you are bringing an immoral lifestyle into a religious institution and forcing Christians to accept it. And spare me the argument that churches and Christians are not being forced to accept SSM. The push has already happened in the past. I have no doubt that it will happen again in the future under the banner of discrimination:
Thanks for the response Jeff, I do appreciate it. AS far as the hall goes out, if you rent something out to the public it is covered as a business. The link discussed a parish hall that was open to rent to the general public not the church itself. It would be no different that if the church owned an apartment building or a grocery store that was open to the public, if you do business you must obey the laws governing busienss. It is the church that is not separating the church (their religious beliefs) and the state (the laws governing businesses and discrimiantion).
Most marriages are done where the location accepts the people getting married. If a church accepts same sex marriage why should you be able to dictate that they cannot do so? If your church states that ssm is not allowed in it why should you be able to say it is not allowed in other churchs, in some one's backyard, at city hall, at a place of worship other than Christian? You are wishing to dictate to all others just to make sure it cannot happen at yours. And it should not be forced to happen at yours if it is not allowed in your church but if your church owns property that it rents out to the general public that is not a church anymore but a rental facilities and in the example you gave it was the hall not the church.
The law for churches to discrimate against who they will not marry is much older than SSM and is perfectly lawful. Your church cannot be forced to marry two Muslims or a Muslim and a Jew or a black and a white or anyone who is not of your church. A rental hall cannot be denied for those groups though. Why are you so afraid that gays are going to get rights that others do not have? Your church has the right to discrimate against them as well as anyone else it wants to.
The hall when it is rented to the pubic is part of the secular world as is the institute of marriage which historically has not always been under the church even during the Christian era and certainly was wide spread through out the world. It does not belong to you and your religious worldview and you should not have the right to force limits on it to the rest of society based on your religious views. And the government must not be allowed to force your church to conduct SSM services either as that should be illegal.
On a couple of threads I have seen comments from Christians about how atheists are mean to them, persecute them, intrude into the religious lives, and so forth. When I asked for examples of this intrusion , excepting things that Christians tried to do that are violations of the Constitution, all I got was that the mean atheists wouldn't let Christians put the 10 Commandments up in a park, presumably a public funded park, which of course is a constitutional issue.
Why is that a Constitutional issue? You'd have to offer better details really. If, for example, there is a public bulletin board then you can put whatever you want on there. If there is a park bench that sells advertising space and some Christian church is willing to pay the price, then they can put the ten commandments on that bench. Freedom of speech etc. If a Church actually builds a public park, they can put up whatever they want. I guess you're going to have to describe to me a scenario where it would actually be a violation of the Constitution. The only case I can think of is if government funding erects a monument of the Ten Commandments.
Quote:
So then, would anyone else like to take a crack at it? In what exact ways are atheists, secularists, humanists, being mean and persecuting Christians ? Again, excepting things that Christians try to do that are violations of the Constitution .
Based on what you've said so far, our ideas of what violates the Constitution likely differs greatly.
Cases of atheist overreach:
1.) A high school football team prays together before a game. Some atheist who isn't even on the team or in the same community gets offended and sues. Here's a similar example, but in this case it's a college program: After Alabama, Atheist Group Looks to Take on Clemson Over Football Coach Dabo Swinney's Christian Faith - Breitbart"The only problem is the group can’t find a current or former player willing to step up as a plaintiff." So you have an organization that has nothing to do with the Clemson football team suing the Clemson football team ... for what exactly? “They need to stop doing church day. They need to cease having coaches in team prayer. And don’t know the status of their chaplaincy.†So coaches can't be involved in a team prayer? How is that not a violation of the 1st Amendment? And whose rights were supposedly infringed here anyways? Where's the victim?
2.) In another case, a school is being sued because they took students on a field trip to a sports facility. The reason? It happens to have been built and also owned by a Christian organization. Something like a YMCA. There was nothing religious about the field trip. Atheists Sue Missouri School District for Sponsoring Field Trip to Christian Sports Facility And once again, you have an outside organization suing. Nobody who actually went on the field trip complained.
3.) For some reason, atheist groups never sue Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims tend to be a lot more demanding for their right to have all things Islam in the public space and a lot more pushy about getting non-Muslims to conform to their religious culture.
In general, several atheist organizations are absolutely sue-crazy. Their end goal? To silence Christianity completely in the short term and to eradicate it in the long term. If they can find a way to sue a religion for existing they can, do and will. Their end-goal is pretty obvious.
Most atheists I've known are not like that. They're pretty calm and just take everything in stride. It is the sue-crazy minority that I take exception to.
No, the difference between you and I is that I can see the harm in ANY type of sexual activity outside of God's plan. Homosexual activity certainly causes harm. HIV statistics prove that as fact no matter how much you want to dance around it. The consent argument certainly is pesky because it is the only way you can stubbornly refuse to address the hypocrisy of claiming sexual orientation discrimination is just fine for certain types. Besides, people can be consenting in incestual relationships, and how do you know an animal does not give consent? Because they don't speak? Aren't we just animals too? What happened to all that evolution argument about how other animals can communicate quite well with each other? A person who is prone to such activities but never dares act out on them is still discriminated against. Consent doesn't even play a role in that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Simply cut and paste in some type of sinful activity that you don't approve of and see how that argument works. Who cares?? Well I care especially if churches are going to be forced to allow immoral ceremonies in the house of God. I wouldn't want to see a swinger's convention be hosted there either.
I will ask again. How does it affect YOU? Churches, contrary to your continued ignorance, are not being forced to perform same sex marriages. If they are, then I will join you I fighting against it, as I do not think they should be forced to do so. They are not being forced to "approve" of same sex marriage either. You can disapprove of it all you want.
Again, contrary to your ignorance on the issue, Christians did not invent marriage. Christians do have a monopoly on marriage. The only way your idea of marriage would work, would be if you only allowed Christians to get married. Is that what you are advocating for Jeff? Are you advocating for taking the rights of gay people and non Christians to get married away from them?
Last edited by southernbored; 03-07-2016 at 11:18 AM..
Reason: Fixed Quote tag
Status:
"YAY! Trump guity! Hang Him!"
(set 10 days ago)
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
7,064 posts, read 9,132,767 times
Reputation: 15660
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Christ never supported sin. He spoke quite harshly against it.
Is breaking one of the 10 Commandments a sin? You know, like 'Bearing False Witness...'? That's in there, isn't it?
Quote:
So then I suppose you support equal rights for those who practice incest, pologamy, or had the misfortune of being born with a sexual orientation to desire animals or minors, right? Or does it just suck to be them?
Sure, why not (except the minors)? It doesn't suck to be them, I think they rather enjoy it. It's not your business.
Pologamy- is that when you use more than one tree with a hole in it?
What would a post from Jeff be without a healthy dose of blatant intellectual dishonesty?
Quote:
Churches can choose to be exempt from the law, but only if they stop renting to the public and rent only to their members.
but hey, Jeff, don't let anything as inconvenient as the truth slow you down.
And what the heck do you care about the separation of church and state anyway? You make no secret of the fact that you are completely opposed to it, except when you think you can use it to advance your agenda (as in this argument.)
So, we've got hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and a totally irrational argument all in the same post. Must say "Jeffbase40" at the top of it.
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.
