Homosexuality

[Loudmouth]

It is before God each will stand and give account for their deeds.

Surely it is the right of each person to follow their own religious beliefs, is it not?

America is not the kingdom of God and shall,with all the earth,be judged and destroyed.

Until then, can we at least not try to destroy it all on our own?

Ours is to speak the truth in love and it is love to speak the truth of the good news of the lord Jesus.

No one is against christians speaking about their beliefs. What people are against is denying peoples' rights by making those beliefs into law.

 

[Loudmouth]

The intent of the 14th amendment was to give equal protection to blacks, it was added in the 1860s after the civil war. Since the gays lost prop 8 in California, they have decided to use judicial bullying. They have no respect for the majority. Our elected officials are elected by the majority, and are suppose to represent the majority. Radical judges have no right to overturn the will of the people.

I find it interesting that the minority seeking their rights are considered the bully, while the majority is the victim.

As the post above me states, the entire purpose of the Judicial system and the US Constitution was to protect the rights of the minority from the bullying of the majority. That is exactly what is happening in this case.

 

[RBPerry]

Jefferson certainly wasn't considering homosexuals marriages, he again was referring to ethnic minorities, and homosexuals do not fall under an ethnic group. Since homosexuality isn't confined to one ethnic group I don't believe the 14th amendment nor Jefferson comment applies to them.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Jefferson certainly wasn't considering homosexuals marriages, he again was referring to ethnic minorities, and homosexuals do not fall under an ethnic group. Since homosexuality isn't confined to one ethnic group I don't believe the 14th amendment nor Jefferson comment applies to them.

Jefferson was commenting on minority versus majority - and not ethnic versus non-ethnic, not gay vs straight, not anything in specific. (So far as I know, at least in this instance.)

He also made it clear, more than once, that he very much so intended that the majority religion NOT be induced to law by majority rule. Which is what is being done here - even if I agree with said religion (which is my own as well) on the position, that is the case.

In no way would he -Jefferson- approve of SSM, most likely, on a personal level. But do you honestly think he would approve of our modern culture forcing a religious view on the minority?

The 14th applies to ALL suspect classes not just racial ones. It applies to male vs female, black vs white vs red vs whatever, gay vs straight, married vs unmarried, etc. All classes that are not within reason to discriminate against - hence due process (since due process would include valid reason against). Judges are maintaining that it is NOT the place of the government to decide what two consenting adult parties can be married in a legal contract. As is their job, since no compelling argument outside of religion has been presented thus far.

 

[RBPerry]

As is their job, since no compelling argument outside of religion has been presented thus far.

One of the most compelling arguments is based on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and yes I know this applies to heterosexuals as well. However when one looks at the gay bath houses, and indiscriminate sexual practices that are widely known in the homosexual communities it is easy to understand how these diseases spread so rapidly. One of the reason this has become such an issue within the heterosexual community is because of bi-sexual activities. I know of at least five examples locally were woman have been given HIV by their husbands being bi-sexual.
Are there monogamous homosexuals, sure there are, but they are a minority in the most part. My group recently did a study on married men soliciting homosexual encounters, it was incredible the number and the kinds of things they were looking for. This is not just a religious issue, it is a basic morality issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

One of the most compelling arguments is based on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and yes I know this applies to heterosexuals as well. However when one looks at the gay bath houses, and indiscriminate sexual practices that are widely known in the homosexual communities it is easy to understand how these diseases spread so rapidly. One of the reason this has become such an issue within the heterosexual community is because of bi-sexual activities. I know of at least five examples locally were woman have been given HIV by their husbands being bi-sexual.
Are there monogamous homosexuals, sure there are, but they are a minority in the most part. My group recently did a study on married men soliciting homosexual encounters, it was incredible the number and the kinds of things they were looking for. This is not just a religious issue, it is a basic morality issue.

Hold on a minute and let me see if I have this right.

One of the most compelling reasons to deny gay couples simple legal protections for their committed and monogamous relationship is that gays are promiscuous. Do I have this right? You actually think that the best way to curb promiscuity is to deny people the option to get married?

Perhaps you want to think that one through?

 

[Alithis]

We,all mankind have the right to believe in God.
The right to hear the gospel of Jesus.and through him ,the right is bestowed upon us to enter eternal life.
We are not here to promote worldly rights.and the right to sodomize has never existed.you cannot claim back that which never was.

 

[Loudmouth]

We,all mankind have the right to believe in God.

We also have the right to not believe in God. In the US, we also have the right to have laws that do not enforce one person's religious beliefs onto another. We believe that freedom means living your life as you see fit, not how someone else sees fit.

We are not here to promote worldly rights.and the right to sodomize has never existed.you cannot claim back that which never was.

Actually, that right does exist in the US.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Inkfingers]

the right to sodomize has never existed

America is not the country that the Plymouth Colony intended for it to be...

 

[retlaw]

Honest question, what happens when the majority become the minority? There's this overwhelming idea in the country that if you disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis then you're nothing but a "bigot" akin to a racist and you hate gays akin to the way the KKK hates Jews and blacks. Which is an utterly false dichotomy. People today have accepted this idea that tolerance and love mean that you agree with and support everything someone does.

So when people draw up laws that make it "fighting words" or "hate speech" to say that you disagree with homosexuality and think it's sin ala the UK and Canada will you still be spouting this?

In all cases in history when an oppressed group gets out from under that oppression they seek revenge on those they perceive harmed them. Even the Catholic church was probably guilty of this (crusades). I believe the case in Colorado where the Christian cake maker refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple is where this is going. The gay couple went elsewhere and got their cake, but pressed a lawsuit against the cake maker. He fought and eventually lost due to a specific non-discriminatory statute that Colorado has. The judges out there hold that the rights of Gay people to not be offended outweighs the cake maker's right to practice his religion as he sees fit. So the cake maker was damaged financially by heavy fines.

But it didn't stop there. The cake maker in order to avoid the conflict going forward stopped making wedding cakes for anyone. The state of Colorado ordered him to make wedding cakes if a Gay couple came in. The cake maker still refused. The state is now threatening him with contempt charges which could if they so choose may result in incarceration.

Gays meanwhile are applauding all the harm and destruction being done this the cake maker. In there eyes there is no amount of revenge that could be enough. Not one of them will stand up and ask the question? "Should we be doing this?" "Is this not the same thing that was done to us?" "Are we not becoming what we most hated?"

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe the case in Colorado where the Christian cake maker refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple is where this is going. The gay couple went elsewhere and got their cake, but pressed a lawsuit against the cake maker.

What about that evil Rosa Parks? She was asked to stand up from her seat so a white man could sit down. What did she do? She rode another bus, and then had the gall to sue. HOW DARE SHE!!!!

 

[Alithis]

We,all mankind have the right to believe in God.
The right to hear the gospel of Jesus.and through him ,the right is bestowed upon us to enter eternal life.
We are not here to promote worldly rights.and the right to sodomize has never existed.you cannot claim back that which never was.

this whole "us rights,law, track is only another distraction .another form of muddying the waters to make the truth unclear.
continue unrepentant ,fulfilling the very bible you oppose and thus validating it for us.and death will take you and hell will devour you.
not only do some refuse to acknowledge sin.they call evil..."good"

and so prove the bible true.
so this too is true...and GOOD NEWS.
That JESUS ,the Christ, died for our sin and whoever believes on him,puts their faith in him ,proving it by the obedience that becomes evident in them by Gods grace at work.will not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[Loudmouth]

this whole "us rights,law, track is only another distraction .another form of muddying the waters to make the truth unclear.

I find it quite scary when christians start asking people to ignore the Constitution and the basic human rights of others.

 

[Alithis]

I find it quite scary when Christians start asking people to ignore the Constitution and the basic human rights of others.

im not an American..and your constitution has been hijacked long ago.
and it is far more frightening when one advocates the imperfect law of man over the word of God.

there is consequence for doing so.

 

[retlaw]

What about that evil Rosa Parks? She was asked to stand up from her seat so a white man could sit down. What did she do? She rode another bus, and then had the gall to sue. HOW DARE SHE!!!!

That comparison is meaningless on several fronts. For one forcing black people to the back of the bus or not letting them eat in your diner was NEVER supported by the Bible. None of those laws were based on any Christian value. Additionally feeding black people or riding with them on the bus does not compromise any religion that I'm aware of.

Secondly Rosa Parks didn't choose to be black nor could she stop being black. She also did not have the ability to keep her "blackness" private.

 

[Loudmouth]

That comparison is meaningless on several fronts. For one forcing black people to the back of the bus or not letting them eat in your diner was NEVER supported by the Bible.

Additionally feeding black people or riding with them on the bus does not compromise any religion that I'm aware of.

So you are saying that all I need to do is invent a religion that believes it is wrong to eat and ride with black people, and then I can reinstate segregation?

I am also unaware of any biblical passage that says that selling cakes to a gay couple for their marriage is not allowed.

Secondly Rosa Parks didn't choose to be black nor could she stop being black. She also did not have the ability to keep her "blackness" private.

Since you chose to be christian, does this mean we can take away your religious freedoms?

 

[retlaw]

So you are saying that all I need to do is invent a religion that believes it is wrong to eat and ride with black people, and then I can reinstate segregation?

I am also unaware of any biblical passage that says that selling cakes to a gay couple for their marriage is not allowed.

Since you chose to be christian, does this mean we can take away your religious freedoms?

Because you have found that there are people who proclaim to be Christians who are racists does not have meaning to this debate. The bible didn't teach them that and if they were taught that they were taught by a false prophet. Even when the Israelites were told by God to not marry the people of Palestine it wasn't because of the color of their skin, it was because they worshiped false Gods. For that matter Moses married a black women and if God had a problem with Black people I'm sure he would have mentioned it then.

There are no passages that say you can't sell cakes to gay people and the Colorado baker did sell all his normal stuff to gay people, just not WEDDING cake which he felt violated his conscience because it was involving him in what he felt was a sinful act.

you ask if being Christian does this mean we can take away you're religious freedom? Isn't that exactly what is happening to the Colorado baker? Not only his religious freedom is being infringed but his ACTUAL freedom may be taken away if he does not BOW to the state.

On you're question about inventing a racist religion. Some might say that from a legal argument standpoint the case would be the same. However historically a religion has to be established for some time and have significant following to have any merit in a court of law.

Answer me this. If this were a Muslim baker would this case have ever been made? Would the legal system hold a Muslim baker to the same standard? Why are only Christians being attacked and sent to "sensitivity training"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you have found that there are people who proclaim to be Christians who are racists does not have meaning to this debate. The bible didn't teach them that and if they were taught that they were taught by a false prophet.

Where does the Bible teach that christians are not to bake cakes for gay weddings?

Where does the Bible teach that christians are to use the force of law in order to make non-christians conform to christian beliefs?

Even when the Israelites were told by God to not marry the people of Palestine it wasn't because of the color of their skin, it was because they worshiped false Gods.

So you are saying that we should pass a law that forbids christians from marrying others who do not believe in the christian God?

There are no passages that say you can't sell cakes to gay people and the Colorado baker did sell all his normal stuff to gay people, just not WEDDING cake which he felt violated his conscience because it was involving him in what he felt was a sinful act.

Desegregation of public places violated the conscience of many people, and yet the South was desegregated. We are the better for it. Desegregation was not meant as a means of punishing white people, nor is the requirement that public businesses treat gay couples the same as straight couples.

you ask if being Christian does this mean we can take away you're religious freedom?

I asked that since you CHOSE to be a christian, does this mean that we can take away your religious freedoms? Why does choosing something mean that it can't be a right?

Isn't that exactly what is happening to the Colorado baker?

Is the Colorado baker still a christian, and allowed to attend church and worship without any interference from the government? Yep, sure is.

Selling cakes as part of a public business is not a religious exercise. If selling cakes to the public compromises a person's religious beliefs, then they shouldn't be selling cakes. It's not that hard to understand.

Not only his religious freedom is being infringed but his ACTUAL freedom may be taken away if he does not BOW to the state.

Yes, just like the segregationists were made to bow to the state.

Who knew that discriminating was such a burden for those doing the discriminating.

[qutoe]On you're question about inventing a racist religion. Some might say that from a legal argument standpoint the case would be the same. However historically a religion has to be established for some time and have significant following to have any merit in a court of law. [/quote]

No, it doesn't. The state does not have a list of approved religions. All you need is to fervently believe, and that's it.

We can also find religions that are overtly racist, such as the Aryan Nations Church. They openly oppose marriages of mixed races because of their religious beliefs, and yet they would lose court cases if they discriminated against couples of mixed race. And rightly so.

Aryan Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this were a Muslim baker would this case have ever been made?

Yes.

Why are only Christians being attacked and sent to "sensitivity training"?

Why are christians playing the victim card?

 

[RBPerry]

Where does the Bible teach that christians are not to bake cakes for gay weddings?

Ever see the signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone....." It is their right, and their rights were trampled on. It is time we fight for our rights, religious freedom is part of our constitutional rights. More so than some gay that wants a cake made. Next time don't deny them, just don't make the cake, or make one nobody would want to eat.

 

[retlaw]

Where does the Bible teach that christians are to use the force of law in order to make non-christians conform to christian beliefs?


So you are saying that we should pass a law that forbids christians from marrying others who do not believe in the christian God?

I asked that since you CHOSE to be a christian, does this mean that we can take away your religious freedoms? Why does choosing something mean that it can't be a right?



Is the Colorado baker still a christian, and allowed to attend church and worship without any interference from the government? Yep, sure is.

Selling cakes as part of a public business is not a religious exercise. If selling cakes to the public compromises a person's religious beliefs, then they shouldn't be selling cakes. It's not that hard to understand.


No, it doesn't. The state does not have a list of approved religions. All you need is to fervently believe, and that's it.

We can also find religions that are overtly racist, such as the Aryan Nations Church. They openly oppose marriages of mixed races because of their religious beliefs, and yet they would lose court cases if they discriminated against couples of mixed race. And rightly so.

Why are christians playing the victim card?

If America were a Christian only nation I would support laws directly tied to our code of conduct. But America was founded on freedom of religion, so I really don't believe in the state attempting to codify morality. That is exactly how a country which codifies Sharia law allows women to be stoned for pretty much anything. Christian laws are a lot better than Sharia laws but he legal principal is the same. The founders wanted everyone to have a choice and I still believe in that.

So, that being said I really don't think the state has any business attempting to control marriage period. To me marriage is an oath between a man and a woman and God. Outside the Judeo-Christian world I don't see that marriage has any particular merit. So if atheists or gays want to have some sort of ceremony and call it a marriage then so be it. I don't think the state should be involved in my marriage or theirs.

The OTHER side of that coin however is that the state should not force me as a Christian to be involved with something that I consider an abomination. You say the Colorado baker still has the right to go to church. His rights do not end at the church house doors. His rights are universal, inalienable, and extend everywhere. As long as his religious practice doesn't harm someone else. and by harm I mean physically harm, not "emotionally upset". You can't live in a society with more than 3 people and not get upset. That's just part of life. His right to bake cakes and sell them should not be infringed by the state unless those cakes are physically harmful. Basically the government doesn't belong in the pastry shop or the bedroom. If he's a racist or a jerk let the free market decide if he makes cakes. If nobody buys his cakes he won't be there long.

Additionally if the state is no longer in the marriage business as I suggest they wouldn't be in the divorce business either. so when gay people split up and want to split up the crap they will just have to deal with that themselves. They got themselves in they can get themselves out.

You realize of course that what I suggest would put literally millions of lawyers out of work.