Unbiased sources? Those were direct quotes from the FF found in speeches, personal letters, diaries etc.
As were mine.
Have you ever examined the sins that God condemned like homosexuality, disposable marriages, drunkeness, theft, fornication etc. and the effects of ignoring God telling us not to do these things? There is a substantial body of evidence that these things are indeed harmful to us and we would be better off if we didn't do them. Race isn't a choice, who we sleep with is a choice and there is no valid comparison of the racism (which has no justification in the Bible) of those who oppose interacial marriage and those who oppose gay 'marriage'.
First, I would like to see this evidence. The entire topic is the ramifications of the legalisation of same-sex marriage - so if you think there exists a large body of evidence demonstrating that such a thing is harmful, one wonders why you're keeping it from us.
Second, you've done exactly what I asked you not to: hand-wave away my query without actually answering it. Yes, I
know race and sexuality are different. But that doesn't answer my question. Would you, or would you not, champion a racist who discriminated against an interracial couple, if it was his or her religious belief to do so?
Rights are inalienable and granted by our Creator ... they are not something that are bestowed upon us by other men or institutions like governments and I marvel that you ignore what they said about the source of those inalienable rights so ... "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Rights do not conflict with one another and the right to life of an unborn baby takes precedence over the mythical right to 'privacy' that the SCOTUS found in the Constitution in their Roe v Wade ruling.
First, the mention of the Creator was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, wherein the rights are enshrined.
Second, it reflects the founding father's beliefs on the origin of those inalienable rights. As deists and non-believers, the founding fathers attributed rights as endowed by a generic Creator - but did not require that everyone believe the same. The Constitution does not require a religious test before rights can be legally protected. They are afforded to
all people.
Third, as a collection of deists and non-believers, it is unlikely that they'd accept Bible-based arguments for prohibiting rights to certain minority groups.
Fourth, the right to life is afforded to persons, humans of legal standing - an unborn foetus is not considered a person. As such, the right to life does not apply, any more than it applies to a dead person.
In essence, the Constitution defines rights as things that exist apart from political legislation - whether the law recognises them or not, constitutionally,
all humans have
all rights
all the time, whether or not the law currently recognises them. The Constitution makes provisions for certain rights, but does not restrict future legislation from recognising the existence of others - for instance, the right to privacy, or the right to equal recognition of union.
Flawed rulings by human courts have justified the murder of people (unborn children, Jews etc), have led to the violation of property rights in preference to the mythical right not to be discriminated against (some discrimination is irrational and wicked such as racism and some discrimination is warranted such as against those with severe moral flaws such as child molestors and other dysfunctional behaviors including homosexuality).
Nonetheless, simple perceiving a person to be inherently immoral (be it because they're gay or black) is not grounds for protection. Discrimination laws exist to protect the minority from the majority. A Christian couple offering a public service has no more right to discriminate against a gay person than they do against a black person. The
reason for their discrimination is utterly irrelevant.
There is nothing 'blind' about the faith of the true Christian. God calls for us to seek knowledge and wisdom, to reason, to study to show ourselves approved, to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith and to be able to give reason for our confidence in Jesus. God tells us many things in the Bible that can be tested for accuracy and they are invariably found to be true. With that being the case I have confidence I can trust what God says about those things we cannot test or verify. If it were not the case than such trust would not be warranted and indeed 'blind'.
I'd be interested in discussing these testable things, but because I don't want to derail my thread, I welcome you to PM me instead.
As to how you might answer God, it will be a shock for all sinners to meet Jesus in all His glory, power, love and justice. The sinner will know Jesus is exactly who He has said He is and all the pretenses the sinner embraced to justify his sin are just that, pretenses that cannot stand before a Holy God. I suspect the sinner will be too ashamed to mount a defense of their sin because they will see their sin for the evil that it was and that God gave them every opportunity to know the truth. This will be true not only of homosexuals but fornicators, thieves (including those who robbed their fellow man by government proxy), drunkards, the many men and women who presented themselves as preachers of God's word when in truth they just found it a convenient way to get the gullible to send them money that they could then spend on their own lusts of the flesh etc.
Well, upon death, we shall both find out. Until then, I have only my rationality to guide me.
Considering the rampant wickedness that men display today and have throughout history, it should be obvious to even the dimmest of people that God is not a tyrant who forces obedience and that His commandments are not devices to deny men joy but to prevent them from harming themselves and their fellow man.
I disagree.
He is worthy of worship and that likely will be the reason for the sinner to wail and gnash his teeth because they will finally realize what they have thrown away by catering to their lusts of the flesh and they will be horrified to have Jesus' judgment upon them, to have to give an account of every idle word they have spoken, of every evil they have done, to have Jesus' wrath poured out upon them and then be cast into hell and the lake of fire which is the second death.
One wonders why a being alleged to be loving, just, merciful, worthy of worship, etc, would allow people to burn in Hell for such banal things as "every idle word they have spoken", or for engaging in the victimless activity of finding love and companionship with someone of their own sex.
Like I said, God, as presented by you and most other Christians, is not a being I would want to worship.
