What if no one would hire you? Would you be okay with not being able to find a job at all because of your Christianity?
How many times must I repeat myself? There are things more important in life than money.
Thievery is an activity that hurts others. Homosexuality hurts no-one. The fact that you are making this comparison at all is troubling.
I suppose if you ignore all the diseases and psychological disorders it causes/spreads, then yeah it is pretty harmless.
Wrong. Thievery is harmful in a practical manner. We can determine that from science. Homosexuality is not harmful in anything but your personal opinion. (a bigoted personal opinion at that)
Where do you get the idea that things "harmful in a practical matter" are wrong? You must be very new to atheism if you still think that there is any way to define morality outside of personal opinion without God.
Secondly, homosexuality most certainly is harmful in a practical matter. How exactly are the higher rates of HIV, AIDS, syphilis, suicide, substance abuse, multiple personality disorders, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and various cancers to be considered theoretical? I expect that out president would not give such a self-destructive behavior any kind of legal recognition, and so if Cain is going to be soft on DADT then he definitely doesn't get my vote.
Because thievery is a 'lifestyle' that directly deprives other people of property. Homosexuality is not. If you cannot understand the difference between a thief and someone's sexual preference in terms of damage then I can't help you.
So "directly depriving other people of property" is only behavior you think is wrong? Homosexuality is a very destructive behavior and it is inexcusable for a president to even think that it would be a good idea to giving legal recognition to such a behavior. Young kids are impressionable and the laws our society has have an impact on their, and if you don't understand that then I cannot help you, and if Cain doesn't understand that then I won't be voting for him.
You mistake my opposition against homosexuals being de facto driven underground with tacit non-judgement. You are completely wrong in that. I am very judgemental and I think everyone ought to be. Thieves make their living by depriving others of their property for their gain. Their very actions destroy the concept of ownership and if tolerated, would negate the concept of civil society over time. They are positively anti-social. Not comparable to sexual preference.
My point was not that you are or aren't judgemental, my point was that you lack any authority beyond yourself to proclaim that certain behaviors are or aren't acceptable. Since you do not acknowledge God, and science is incapable of declaring a behavior to be acceptable or unacceptable, the only thing you have left is personal opinion. I do agree that the concept of personal property is important for maintaining order in society, but where do you, as an atheist, get the idea that maintaining order in society is what people should do if not your own personal opinion? And if it is only your personal opinion, then what grounds do argue from that other people shouldn't also have their own opinions on the way people should behave?
No I don't. I derive my opposition to theft from a positive agreement in the concept of ownership as necessary for a civil society be it collective or private. You may derive it from elsewhere, and if you do then shame on you.
Then where do you derive your idea that society should be civil? Simply declaring that society should be civil does not make it so. You must derive your morals from some source, whether it be God, or self, or someone\something else. If you cannot point to some source, then we must assume that source is simply your own personal opinion. The question will keep regressing until you do.
This is going completely off-topic. You are attempting the outright obscene argument of saying that because I am anti-something (thievery) then I should be anti-everything. I have developed proportion and can understand the difference between specific actions, tendencies and behaviours. You cannot, and therefore your system of morality whether you derive it from is apparently broken.
Perhaps if you stop splitting up my paragraphs and instead read them in their entirety you would not have such trouble understanding them. This was simply further explanation of what I was talking about earlier in that same paragraph. I was asking what source you used to determine that thievery is not acceptable behavior, but that homosexuality is. Simply declaring it does not make it so.
It is a side discussion in this thread. I asked a few times to Herman Cain supporters what they make of his anti-Muslim bigotry and haven't received an answer.
Liberals throw the word "bigot" so much that it's pretty much meaningless these days. Who in their right mind would expect a Christian president would appoint Muslims to their administration? Muslims have a completely different worldview than Christians. Just take a look at what's happening over in Europe, especially France, because they're trying be "politically correct". If people want Muslims in office, then let them vote Muslims into office.
