Homosexuals force out protrue marriage Mozilla CEO. Please drop your Mozilla browser

[Percepi]

Sounds the same to me.

According to you logic, when a grown adult punches a baby, it must be the baby's fault since it's the baby who's defenseless. Cool logic bro.

AgeofKnowledge , we're on the same page. I agree, the baker should have every right to refuse service to whomever he pleases.

If you're referring to cases such as the baker who lost his job for refusing service to homosexuals, it wasn't the gay agenda that did him through. He had his business shut down due to a state law forbidding any form of discrimination of service. I'll agree with you that these laws shouldn't exist - because people should be allowed to serve whomever they want.

I will concede, that arguably, it was a gay agenda to force businesses to serve everyone without discriminating against sexual orientation. However, not all gays have agendas. Many gays avoid politics, or have different political views. I dislike calling it a gay agenda because not all gays are a unified voice fighting for the same thing.

I align with the baker. Americans should not be imprisoned and bankrupted (e.g. severely persecuted by the judicial-prison system) for refusing to facilitate immoral behaviors such as homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc...

Homosexuality, pedophilia, and beastiality are all entirely different and are wrong for different reasons. Homosexuality, unlike pedophilia and beastiality, is considered wrong solely due to religious reasons. The immorality of pedophilia and beastiality are not based solely on religion.

When you argue people should be allowed not to facilitate immoral behaviors, then you create a huge problem. You create a situation where the government must dictate which behaviors and immoral and which ones are not. Since homosexuality is immoral because God said it's immoral, it can become a constitutional law. You would have to find non-religious reasons why homosexuality is immoral and why it should not only be disdained, but illegal.

Instead, you should be arguing for people's rights to refuse service to ANYONE. That way, instead of the baker being told which people he's allowed to discriminate against, and which people he's not, he can make up his own mind! This actually works BETTER for Christians, because even if homosexuality becomes accepted by 95% of the population (therefore, being deemed not immoral), the remaining 5% don't have to serve homosexuals.

Also, I find it funny how homosexuality is compared to pedophilia and beastiality. Most Christians are okay with homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they don't push it on others. But pedophilia and beastiality are always wrong. So why the discrepancy?

Normative immorality has been clearly defined in Western normative ethics for a long time.

No, it hasn't. Anyone who studies ethics will come to understand this very, very, quickly.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It's about NOT forcing people to support historically normatively immoral activities/events or be DESTROYED by the government.

There is no discrimination of persons occurring only discrimination with respect to activities/events that are historically normatively immoral.

I don't know why this is so difficult for Percepi to grasp.

And it's not funny at all because a template has been created that civil rights legislation (intended to normalize race and gender) can now be applied to groups of people based on the immoral behaviors they engage in.

Once that line was crossed with respect to people who choose to engage in homosexuality, the other groups have begun to clamor for the template to be applied to them claiming that they too are "born that way" and arguing for exactly the same protections for exactly the same reasons.

Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement - Page 1 - News - Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach - New Times Broward-Palm Beach

Etc...

And the way things are headed presently, it's only a matter of time until they get it. The template is already constructed.

And yes normative morality has been well established for a long time in Western Civilization with respect to sexual immorality. You're making a false assertion from ignorance.

 

[J-Kay-2]

I think Christians are slowly being squashed like we are dirty bugs.
I believe we have all known a homosexual in our lifetime. Even had
relatives and friend. We could love them for being human being created
the same as God intended us to be.

Somewhere as the years passed, homosexual was in the closet. Actually
they should have stayed there. We did not need to know who they were
and what they do. But some how the door opened wider and when it appeared
safe, one steps out proudly announcing I am homosexual. What was the name?
Oh, could be many entertainers. I am sure all remember the show Ellen.

I had a cousin I loved with all my heart. I shared Christ with Him, he knew
about Jesus anyway. But, died still in the lifestyle. I will not judge him but
I know he will stand before God someday. It will be between them. I can
have my thoughts, but I won't entertain them anymore than I will entertain
thoughts of an alcoholic who will stand before God.

My main point I want to say regarding the issue we are talking about,
do not forget who decided and declared it is okay to marry same sex.
Did anyone ever ask why he approves of it ? Do some research.

The Pope is now declaring it to be okay. I am not Catholic, but not dumb.
Something wrong with that picture.

So we have Christians who will be persecuted for not accepting this new
"Lifestyle change." I wish I could be as positive as former poster and say
we can change the direction this is going, but I personally don't see it
happening.

It is getting worse, not better. I mean when you have Pastors, President,
Pope, Leaders who profess to know more than God Almighty, there will
be judgement and sadly it will "rain on the just and the unjust alike."

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Here's a brief introduction to normative ethics: What is normative ethics?

Christian ethics began to be codified in Western Civilization from the First Council of Nicaea of 325 AD under Constantine the Great.

 

[J-Kay-2]

Here's a brief introduction to normative ethics: What is normative ethics?

Christian ethics began to be codified in Western Civilization from the First Council of Nicaea of 325 AD under Constantine the Great.

Checked out the source and reason I did needed to know it is good to
know where they stand in their belief. I think from scanning their creed
we are safe in my posting some of what they wrote. I was concerned
by the word TRUTH.... I needed to know it is Father, Son (Jesus) and
Holy Ghost. So I am going to post this one paragraph from your link.
Thank you for taking it to heart.
>>>


CHRISTIAN ETHICS
Unlike the other normative ethical schools, Christian ethics answers the questions. It identifies truth (God), outlines the basis of ethics (principles found in the Bible), and even lists some universal laws that apply directly to the unchanging truth.

The problem with manmade ethics is that they start with a false assumption of truth and try to build from there. Deontology says ethics are based on obligation, without basing that obligation on God's truth. Consequentialism says that "good" is truth, but then can't define what "good" is. Relativism says we cannot know the truth. And virtue ethics claims that we can work to embody truth ourselves. Only Christian ethics says that truth exists (Psalm 51:6), truth is knowable (Proverbs 3:3), and we will need help from the Creator of truth to find it (John 14:16-17). It is foolish to base a standard of behavior on our feeble notions of the truth of the cosmos when the Truth Himself is willing to guide us (John 14:6).

Recommended Resources: Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options, Second Edition by Norman L. Geisler and Logos Bible Software.

While he is not the author of every article on GotQuestions.org, for citation purposes, you may reference our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann.

Read more: What is normative ethics?
​

 

[Percepi]

Your link about how homosexuality is leading to bestiality is a very weak argument. One can argue interracial sex lead to homosexuality. One can argue racial tolerance lead to interracial sex. And if you think about it, you can argue heterosexual sex leads to man on girl/woman rape.

You are committing a slipper slope fallacy.

And yes normative morality has been well established for a long time in Western Civilization with respect to sexual immorality. You're making a false assertion from ignorance.

Considering your entire argument is based on this premise, this premise is all that needs attention.

There is no normative ethical standard. Ethics is a constantly discussed, constantly debated, subject. There are MANY schools of thought when it comes to normative ethics. For someone who talks about ethics, you sure do lack an understanding of ethics and where ethics stem from.

As a Christian, I'm sure you believe ethics stem from God. This contradicts what most people have come to understand in the field of ethics.

I think Christians are slowly being squashed like we are dirty bugs.

In some cases, Christians are being discriminated against (this is true for most groups). But, for the most part, Christians are merely losing political power.

What was the name?

[video=youtube;w_cmYrXH85M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_cmYrXH85M[/video]

It is getting worse, not better. I mean when you have Pastors, President,
Pope, Leaders who profess to know more than God Almighty, there will
be judgement and sadly it will "rain on the just and the unjust alike."

Nobody professes to know more than God. They profess to either believe God is okay with such things or they don't believe in God. Let's not bare false witness.

Here's a brief introduction to normative ethics: What is normative ethics?

Christian ethics began to be codified in Western Civilization from the First Council of Nicaea of 325 AD under Constantine the Great.

Why did you link me something that only confirms what I've already said?

Christians believe our morality comes from God. What do you do? You link me a Christian website that makes this point. Of course, not everyone accepts what you have linked. And not a single non-Christian believes our morality comes from God.

You believe our ethics, which stem from God, should become law. First Amendment divides church and state, meaning God can't be a reason for a law to be formed.

Oh, also:

Unlike the other normative ethical schools

Even your own source acknowledged that there are other schools of normative ethics. This proves your point wrong.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm not committing any fallacy. You are simply ignorant of what has occurred and is occurring and retreating into denial as it is explained to you. That's your problem. It's not a slippery slope fallacy since the template is in place for it to occur and it's begun to occur... making it an observable slippery slope in progress.

And here you go with the false assertions again Percepi. "There is no normative ethical standard." Sure there is. There are lots of them. Let me enlighten you with an example. It's normatively unethical and immoral to murder someone. That's a normative ethic.

In Christianized Western Civilization, which as I stated has been around for a long time though you falsely asserted that it hasn't in your ignorance, normative immoral acts include homosexuality, bestiality, etc...

Read a history book and stop making ignorant false assertions that these deviant sexual sins haven't been codified in Christianized Western Civilization as immoral. They were against the law for centuries.

As a Christian, I assert that your false assertion there are no normative ethics is false. There certainly are and, as I stated, they began to be codified in Christianized Western Civilization beginning from 325 AD though they have existed from the beginning.

We're going in circles. You're making false assertions that they don't exist and I'm simply explaining factually to you that they do exist.

I'll tell you exactly what normative morality is: normative morality IS God's morality which is an extension of His character.

 

[Simona25]

Sounds the same to me.

Because it is the same.
Why do you think that kids are being bombarded (and familiarised) with a highly sexualised and pornographic music videos? Maybe soon enough some "open-minded" people will ask to lower the age at which a person can give her sexual consent.
In Percepi's mind, if an 11 years old could legally give his consent to an adult, than the relation would be normal.
You see the logic? It's not the pedophile that must cure, it is the child that can be familiarised with pedophilia. A child can be conditioned to think that such relation is normal.

 

[TaylorTG]

Really Percepi? Is that what's wrong about pedophilia? That a kid can not understand "sexual and romantic relationship"? How about pedophilia is wrong because the attraction that a man has for a kid is a sick attraction?

So the problem lies with the kids? Interesting point of view

Well I for one agree with Percepi. We should exterminate all children on Earth so we wouldn't have to deal with Pedophilias.

The old testament is alllllll about purging the evil from our mist.

 

[MarkMulder]

According to you logic, when a grown adult punches a baby, it must be the baby's fault since it's the baby who's defenseless. Cool logic bro.

That's YOUR logic not mine.
By YOUR reasoning, if only children understood "sex and relationships"
pedophilia would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[MarkMulder]

The old testament is alllllll about purging the evil from our mist.

........

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

“There is a gay mafia,” said Bill Maher, “if you cross them you do get whacked.”

Maher, the host of HBO’s “Real Time,” was talking about the gay activists and their comrades who drove Brendan Eich out as CEO of Mozilla. Eich, who invented JavaScript and co-founded Mozilla in 1998, had been named chief executive in late March.

Instantly, he came under attack for having contributed $1,000 to Proposition 8, whereby a majority of Californians voted in 2008 to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was backed by the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and the black churches, and carried 70 percent of the African-American vote.

Though Eich apologized for any “pain” he had caused and pledged to promote equality for gays and lesbians at Mozilla, his plea for clemency failed to move his accusers. Too late.

The New Blacklist - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

 

[J-Kay-2]

The New Blacklist - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website ~ The rest of the story....
Though Eich apologized for any “pain” he had caused and pledged to promote equality for gays and lesbians at Mozilla, his plea for clemency failed to move his accusers. Too late. According to The Guardian, he quit after it was revealed that he had also contributed — “The horror, the horror!” — to the Buchanan campaign of 1992.
That cooked it. What further need was there of proof of the irredeemably malevolent character of Brendan Eich?
Observing the mob run this accomplished man out of a company he helped create, Andrew Sullivan blogged that Eich “has just been scalped” by gay activists. Sullivan went on:
“Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole thing disgusts me, as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”
Yet, the purge of Eich, who, from his contributions — he also gave to Ron Paul — appears to be a traditionalist and libertarian — is being defended as a triumph of the First Amendment.
James Ball of The Guardian writes that far from being “a defeat for freedom of expression,” Eich’s removal is a “victory — the ouster of a founder and CEO by his own people, at a foundation based on open and equal expression.”
Eich’s forced resignation, writes Ball, “should be the textbook example of the system working exactly as it should.”
Ball seems to be saying that what the gay mob did to Eich at Mozilla is what the heroes of Maidan Square did in driving President Viktor Yanukovych out of power and out of his country.
This is how the democracy works now.
Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation, who escorted Eich out, said in her statement: “Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.
Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
George Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
What Baker is saying is that you have freedom of speech, so long as you use your speech to advocate equality.
And what do we do with those who use their freedom of speech to express their view, rooted in religion and history, that traditional marriage is not only superior to same-sex marriage, the latter is a contradiction of the natural and moral law.
And what of those institutions that teach and preach that outside traditional marriage sexual relations are wrong?
One such is the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church whose 1976 catechism, “The Teaching of Christ,” describes homosexual acts as “sexual vices” and “sexual perversions.”
Is that just yesterday’s church and yesterday’s belief?
Well, one of the compilers of that catechism was Donald W. Wuerl of Angelicum University in Rome, who would appear to be the same cleric as Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who is now one of the inner circle advising Pope Francis I.
Yet, it is not only Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical and Protestant churches that believe this, but the Islamic faith, perhaps a majority of Americans, and more than a majority of the world’s peoples.
Up until last year, Barack Obama opposed same-sex marriage.
What the Brendan Eich episode teaches us, where a man was driven from a position he had earned, because of his beliefs, and was abandoned and left undefended by false friends and gutless peers in Silicon Valley, is this:
In the new dispensation, opposition to same-sex marriage disqualifies you from leadership and may legitimately be used to bring about the ruin of your career.
This is the new blacklist.
The old blacklist declared that if you were a member of the Communist Party that toadied to Stalin, and you refused to recant and took the Fifth Amendment, you would not be permitted to work in Hollywood. We are Americans, said that Hollywood, and we believe in American values.
Now, nearly seven decades later, the Stalinists of the ’40s are martyr-heroes in Hollywood. And in Silicon Valley conservatives and traditionalists who oppose same-sex marriage are to be denied top jobs and driven into social exile.
The new blacklist means that while diversity of races, genders and sexual orientations is mandatory, diversity of thought and opinion is restricted. In Silicon Valley, they burn heretics.

 

[J-Kay-2]

I receive Mike Huckabee short notes and I copied this one paragraph I think
is so very well said ~

****Look, every person of good will agrees that bullying and discrimination against gay people is wrong. But you’d think that the victims of bullying would know better than anyone else how wrong it is. Polls have indicated in recent years that the same-sex marriage advocates have been winning the PR battle by arguing that they just want equality of constitutional rights. They risk losing the support they’ve won if they try to use their recent victories to take away other people’s constitutional rights.**** Mike Huckabee and I agree~ J~K~2

 

[Percepi]

I'll tell you exactly what normative morality is: normative morality IS God's morality which is an extension of His character.

This literally means nothing to non-Christians.

Don't tell me normative morality is obvious when it's based off of a religion not everyone believes in.

Because it is the same.
Why do you think that kids are being bombarded (and familiarised) with a highly sexualised and pornographic music videos? Maybe soon enough some "open-minded" people will ask to lower the age at which a person can give her sexual consent.
In Percepi's mind, if an 11 years old could legally give his consent to an adult, than the relation would be normal.
You see the logic? It's not the pedophile that must cure, it is the child that can be familiarised with pedophilia. A child can be conditioned to think that such relation is normal.

You're a total idiot if you think I believe that. There's so much wrong with your statement that doesn't match what I said, it makes me sick.

The fact a child can't do something doesn't mean the child is being blamed.

If a parent left a child home alone and the child hurts himself, would it be wrong to say, "You can't leave children home alone. They're incapable of taking care of themselves!" But, according to you and MarkMulder, making such a statement is the same as blaming the child and not the parent.

If a man is bigger than a woman and rapes her, if someone says, "She was helpless because she was half his size," you would condemn such a person as victim blaming.

Just because the reason lies in a victim doesn't imply the victim is to blame or should be held accountable.

Lastly, and most importantly, if the law was changed so 11 year olds could consent to sex, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT SUCH A CHANGE. Not once did I say pedophilia was wrong simply because it was the law.

Please avoid attacking completely untrue strawmen. I don't appreciate people telling gross lies about me. If you don't understand my logic, ask me to be more clear. Don't try to elaborate on my logic if you don't understand it as a means of assassinating my character. That's dishonest and crooked.

That's YOUR logic not mine.
By YOUR reasoning, if only children understood "sex and relationships"
pedophilia would be perfectly acceptable.

And according to your logic, if God didn't say pedophilia was wrong, then it wouldn't be wrong.

The fact of the matter is, children do not understand sex and relationships. Instead of arguing against my argument, you're arguing against a hypothetical that doesn't exist.

Allow me to ask this, is pedophilia wrong ONLY because God says it's wrong, or is it also wrong for other reasons? Please elaborate.

 

[paulsfam4]

that's a false premise. they all ready have the same rights as everyone else they are trying to push their sin on everyone and to accept their sin which is totally against Gods will and are belief

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Percepi, your assertion is false because God's morality (e.g. normative morality) does mean literally something to non-Christians both in the present and for eternity.

It does mean something, whether or not, they choose to deny God's morality and that's why there are temporal consequences and will be eternal consequences for them.

Normative morality is normatively moral and posits real consequences both in the temporal and in the eternal whether or not people choose to believe and accept it or whether or not they're even aware of it.

If someone lives at the base of a volcano not knowing that it is a volcano, and it erupts, they experience the consequences of living at the base of an erupting volcano regardless of whether or not they knew they were living at the base of a volcano that was about to erupt.

That is reality and reality doesn't cease to exist just because you deny it and/or don't like it. Reality exists anyways. Reality exists.

And, as has already been explained to you repeatedly, God's morality (e.g. normative morality) is NOT "based off a religion" but originates with God and reflects His character.

I'm not sure what your fabricated hypothetical analogies have to do with any of this as they look nonsensical and have zero to do with me. Obviously you have reached the age of accountability and are responsible, to the extent that you actually are, for your choices. Obviously rapists are guilty of rape and not their victims.

Certainly you are wrong, of course, about "my logic" because God has shared His morality with humanity adequately. Here's one example of what that looks like:

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel [body] in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification." -1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 (NASB).

God is holy and it is God's will and command that people be holy. No ambiguity here making your odd statement that "according to your logic, if God didn't say pedophilia was wrong, then it wouldn't be wrong" patently WRONG.

 

[Percepi]

What I meant was, your argument means nothing to non-believers - because your argument comes off as false to them.

That's what I meant when I said "This means nothing to non-Christians".

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Sure. I hear you. People have been rejecting the truth for a long long time.

I was talking to a liberal relativist public educator the other day and she refused to acknowledge that anything was objective whatsoever. She asserted that everything is relative and that nothing objectively exists in reality.

So, I took a 10 ounce bar of 99.9% silver I had on me that I bought off Ebay years ago and was going to give to a friend as a gift and placed it in her hand and said, "That is a bar of .999 silver which is a chemical element (chemical symbol Ag and atomic number 47) that is a soft, white, lustrous transition metal, that possesses the highest electrical conductivity of any element and the highest thermal conductivity of any metal. No matter whether you acknowledge its existence or not, or how you interpret it: this bar of .999 silver exists in reality exactly as it really does."

She handed it back to me and said that its very existence was dependent on whether people interpreted it as existing or not.

I rolled my eyes and tossed it from hand to hand in front of her. I explained that it is real and exists whether or not people acknowledge its existence.

Silver exists even when people choose to deny its existence. Silver is what it is regardless of how people choose to interpret it. And, so does God's normative morality.

She was wrong that silver does not exist unless she chooses to acknowledge its existence and they are wrong that God's normative morality does not exist.

Dismissing a bar of silver may not have any consequences for one's life but dismissing God's morality is another matter entirely.

What I meant was, your argument means nothing to non-believers - because your argument comes off as false to them.

That's what I meant when I said "This means nothing to non-Christians".

 

[Percepi]

Sure. I hear you. People have been rejecting the truth for a long long time.

I was talking to a liberal relativist public educator the other day and she refused to acknowledge that anything was objective whatsoever. She asserted that everything is relative and that nothing objectively exists in reality.

So, I took a 10 ounce bar of 99.9% silver I had on me that I bought off Ebay years ago and was going to give to a friend as a gift and placed it in her hand and said, "That is a bar of .999 silver which is a chemical element (chemical symbol Ag and atomic number 47) that is a soft, white, lustrous transition metal, that possesses the highest electrical conductivity of any element and the highest thermal conductivity of any metal. No matter whether you acknowledge its existence or not, or how you interpret it: this bar of .999 silver exists in reality exactly as it really does."

She handed it back to me and said that its very existence was dependent on whether people interpreted it as existing or not.

I rolled my eyes and tossed it from hand to hand in front of her. I explained that it is real and exists whether or not people acknowledge its existence.

Silver exists even when people choose to deny its existence. Silver is what it is regardless of how people choose to interpret it. And, so does God's normative morality.

She was wrong that silver does not exist unless she chooses to acknowledge its existence and they are wrong that God's normative morality does not exist.

Dismissing a bar of silver may not have any consequences for one's life but dismissing God's morality is another matter entirely.

The difference between the silver you juggled hand to hand and normative morality is that the silver is a physical object. Normative morality, on the other hand, is a concept. Of course, you're arguing normative morality comes from God, which transitions the debate towards the existence of God.

To you, God is as real as the silver you juggled hand to hand. To non-believers, he's as real as the Deathstar from Star Wars. So, there isn't a consensus on God - and more importantly, normative morality.