The politics of Gay rights.

[mj007]

Not sure what you are on about. There is a difference between a negative attitude towards, and natural kind of disgust or shock about something uncommon or unnatural.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

I responded to your false presumption homophobia is a social construct by people who "hate gays", rather than a natural construct of the mind.

When you operate on this false presumption, I can't respond to the rest of the post working under this false presumption. I can only tell you I think it's false.

If you mean your previous post I saw the second one first because all of your cronies are rallying together to defend abominations. I'll get to it if I want to.

 

[Zi]

But when it's unequal towards all who sin then it's about the particular sin.

This is not about loving or hating the sinner, it is about not encouraging them to continue in their sin.

 

[kaylagrl]

All of y'all make the stupidest argument.

There shouldn't be an argument over homosexual marriage. The argument should be about the continued involvement of the government in marriage. A smart Republican would have advocated the repeal of marriage laws in their state.

The argument shouldn't be about a person's religious beliefs and participating in a transaction with homosexuals. A smart bakery owner would have refused, and never given a reason why. The argument would be about how much autonomy a business owner has.

Id have baked the cake.They wouldn't have liked the cake,but they'd have gotten a cake and a free sermon to go along with it. But thats how Id have handled it.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

All of y'all make the stupidest argument.

There shouldn't be an argument over homosexual marriage. The argument should be about the continued involvement of the government in marriage. A smart Republican would have advocated the repeal of marriage laws in their state.

The argument shouldn't be about a person's religious beliefs and participating in a transaction with homosexuals. A smart bakery owner would have refused, and never given a reason why. The argument would be about how much autonomy a business owner has.

Well, I guess some of us old saints are just stupid in your eyes.
I mean being against sin and stuff like that.
We will see what God says when we stand before Him.

 

[Waggles]

Marriage is of religion.
Heterosexual marriage is God given. A sacrament of union
for life declared before others and God or other gods.

Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains and pretty well all religions have the
sacrament of heterosexual marriage.
Even communists and atheists get married because it is the ideal
arrangement between men and women for procreation and family life.

The laws of the land in a secular pluralistic society are only for the
practical application of a religious ceremony of union between a man
and a women.
There are practical implications that need to be regulated and organized
for the protection of marriage and for children.
monogamy
property rights
children and their rights
divorce and settlements
children and access to parents

Marriage is an ideal: in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer,
until death do us part.
But human beings are sinful and do not always live up to these ideals,
so laws must be enacted to resolve our failures in marriage and parenting.

Marriage is not an invention of any legislature. Marriage has existed
for thousands and thousands of years before our modern era.

The bakers who refused to bake a special order from scratch and decorate
it with words pertaining to celebrating a same-sex or homosexual
"marriage" are well within their rights to refuse such.
It is a matter of religion not civil rights.

Marriage is of religion; and homosexual marriage is a blasphemy.
The left-wing bigots who ordered the cake were equivalent to demanding
that a Muslim or a Jew bbq up some pork and serve it up to those who have
done so to deliberately offend.

I have every right to defend my religion and my values.
Some issues are general and irrelevant like the gay barber who cuts my
hair. He is not demanding that I give up core values integral to my religion.

Homosexual marriage and the politics of this are deliberately provocative
and the agenda is to dechristianize our society and replace my religion
with the theology of political correctness.

That's a fight worth fighting.

 

[Zi]

The pork issue is not at all equal. If they sold pork to begin with and refused to some then we have an even argument.

Nobody went in to a tire store and said sell us a cake.. that's what your pork argument is equivalent to..

Marriage is of religion.
Heterosexual marriage is God given. A sacrament of union
for life declared before others and God or other gods.

Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains and pretty well all religions have the
sacrament of heterosexual marriage.
Even communists and atheists get married because it is the ideal
arrangement between men and women for procreation and family life.

The laws of the land in a secular pluralistic society are only for the
practical application of a religious ceremony of union between a man
and a women.
There are practical implications that need to be regulated and organized
for the protection of marriage and for children.
monogamy
property rights
children and their rights
divorce and settlements
children and access to parents

Marriage is an ideal: in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer,
until death do us part.
But human beings are sinful and do not always live up to these ideals,
so laws must be enacted to resolve our failures in marriage and parenting.

Marriage is not an invention of any legislature. Marriage has existed
for thousands and thousands of years before our modern era.

The bakers who refused to bake a special order from scratch and decorate
it with words pertaining to celebrating a same-sex or homosexual
"marriage" are well within their rights to refuse such.
It is a matter of religion not civil rights.

Marriage is of religion; and homosexual marriage is a blasphemy.
The left-wing bigots who ordered the cake were equivalent to demanding
that a Muslim or a Jew bbq up some pork and serve it up to those who have
done so to deliberately offend.

I have every right to defend my religion and my values.
Some issues are general and irrelevant like the gay barber who cuts my
hair. He is not demanding that I give up core values integral to my religion.

Homosexual marriage and the politics of this are deliberately provocative
and the agenda is to dechristianize our society and replace my religion
with the theology of political correctness.

That's a fight worth fighting.

 

[Tommy379]

Well, I guess some of us old saints are just stupid in your eyes.
I mean being against sin and stuff like that.
We will see what God says when we stand before Him.

Using theocratic arguments, will not win the debate in the legislatures, or courts.

 

[Tommy379]

Marriage is of religion.
Heterosexual marriage is God given. A sacrament of union
for life declared before others and God or other gods.

Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains and pretty well all religions have the
sacrament of heterosexual marriage.
Even communists and atheists get married because it is the ideal
arrangement between men and women for procreation and family life.

The laws of the land in a secular pluralistic society are only for the
practical application of a religious ceremony of union between a man
and a women.
There are practical implications that need to be regulated and organized
for the protection of marriage and for children.
monogamy
property rights
children and their rights
divorce and settlements
children and access to parents

Marriage is an ideal: in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer,
until death do us part.
But human beings are sinful and do not always live up to these ideals,
so laws must be enacted to resolve our failures in marriage and parenting.

Marriage is not an invention of any legislature. Marriage has existed
for thousands and thousands of years before our modern era.

The bakers who refused to bake a special order from scratch and decorate
it with words pertaining to celebrating a same-sex or homosexual
"marriage" are well within their rights to refuse such.
It is a matter of religion not civil rights.

Marriage is of religion; and homosexual marriage is a blasphemy.
The left-wing bigots who ordered the cake were equivalent to demanding
that a Muslim or a Jew bbq up some pork and serve it up to those who have
done so to deliberately offend.

I have every right to defend my religion and my values.
Some issues are general and irrelevant like the gay barber who cuts my
hair. He is not demanding that I give up core values integral to my religion.

Homosexual marriage and the politics of this are deliberately provocative
and the agenda is to dechristianize our society and replace my religion
with the theology of political correctness.

That's a fight worth fighting.

If marriage is of religion, why insist the government installs it.

 

[Zi]

They asked for something that was supposed to be available to the public. They didn't ask for something they didn't have. They asked for something the owners didn't want to make.. yet a cake for dogs isn't silly and a slap in the face...

The thing is they believe it's who they are and not a choice. Quit being self-righteous ye who needed light and shine

 

[Ellsworth1943]

I haven't given it much thought so I can't answer that sorry Ellsworth. While you make it a simple subject, I don't think it is really. I'm sure you asked it in genuine spirit and light though, I'm sure.

Why is it not simple? We either support homosexual rights, abortion rights, pot smokers rights, the right to get drunk, the right to have sex outside marriage, and many other sins or we do not. While I love the sinner and pray for them, I do not accept their right to sin because God does not accept their right to sin.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

They asked for something that was supposed to be available to the public. They didn't ask for something they didn't have. They asked for something the owners didn't want to make.. yet a cake for dogs isn't silly and a slap in the face...

The thing is they believe it's who they are and not a choice. Quit being self-righteous ye who needed light and shine

Do you also support abortion rights?

 

[pckts]

Not sure what you are on about. There is a difference between a negative attitude towards, and natural kind of disgust or shock about something uncommon or unnatural.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

A natural kind of disgust is a negative attitude toward the behavior. You contradicted yourself right from the beginning.


Do you think providing a definition that you agree with means anything to me?

Do you think it only comes from irrational fear and religious beliefs that you have rejected?



You and I shouldn't discuss any biblical matters, because we do not believe in the same canonical Bible. It's just me telling you my doctrine, and you telling me your doctrine over one another. What does this do? I know I won't get through to you because I've tried, and I guess you want me to adopt your satanic new-age beliefs. No thanks

 

[Zi]

Can you say you know without a doubt that you don't in some way contribute to the company or business of anyone that fits your list? Why is that OK?

Why is it not simple? We either support homosexual rights, abortion rights, pot smokers rights, the right to get drunk, the right to have sex outside marriage, and many other sins or we do not. While I love the sinner and pray for them, I do not accept their right to sin because God does not accept their right to sin.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Using theocratic arguments, will not win the debate in the legislatures, or courts.

That is true, but this is discussion on a "Christian" forum. Or maybe not.

 

[Zi]

Who's working the machines that have sewn the clothes most of you have on?

Suddenly that's OK tho eh? Girls, who makes your purse, perfume, owns the salon you go to?

 

[Zi]

Do you know? Does it matter? If you're against then you must be totally out. If not you're a hypocrite

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Can you say you know without a doubt that you don't in some way contribute to the company or business of anyone that fits your list? Why is that OK?

Of course not. But I will not knowingly do so.
We live in a world that is filled with sin and as much as we would like to not be a part of it, we some times get dirty also.
But we should try and never stand up for the right to sin.

 

[Tommy379]

That is true, but this is discussion on a "Christian" forum. Or maybe not.

It is, but each person posting here would like to see public policy affected in some way, that would align it with their own ideal. Making the argument from a theologian point of view, will not serve to make that change.

Either that, or we have two sides in this thread arguing about something completely different, which serves no purpose.

 

[Zi]

I'm not saying stand up and agree with anyone.

If you're against you're against.

Passive, most turn a blind eye because they enjoy the item

Of course not. But I will not knowingly do so.
We live in a world that is filled with sin and as much as we would like to not be a part of it, we some times get dirty also.
But we should try and never stand up for the right to sin.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Do you know? Does it matter? If you're against then you must be totally out. If not you're a hypocrite

Some things we can not know. That is not the point. What I object to are those who openly sin and ask me , no demand that I accept it as their right. I think that is what the discussion is about.