What Should Christians Think of Governments That Criminalize Homosexuality?

Percepi · Mar 9, 2014

1. Christians in America are not being persecuted by the gay community.

2. Giving gays rights does not force you to be gay, partake in gay activities, or force you to personally support these gay activities. Don't be an imbecile.

3. Do you even know what the First Amendment is?

You're essentially arguing, "We have a right not to have our views challenged, and part of keeping our views unchallenged is forcing those who disagree with our views to embrace them." But this logic is incredibly flawed and completely asinine. CONSISTENTLY SPEAKING, THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE CAN ALSO BE MADE BY THE OPPOSITION. "PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ILL OF HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE IT INFRINGES ON MY RIGHT TO BE GAY AND IT INFRINGES ON MY RIGHT TO NOT HAVE MY VIEWS CHALLENGED." Please remain consistent with your arguments. What you said is an example of double standards - which shows how little thought you actually give this topic.

Understand that some words have multiple definitions. When people refer to homosexual perversion, they generally refer to sexual urges.

You suggest heterosexual perversion is more justified because because it make's more sense - because such perversion can result in procreation. This statement is just silly, because people who are sexually perverted want to have sex for sake of having fun - not to procreate.

Furthermore, telling us homosexuality is wrong because gay sex can't procreate is laughable and inconsistent with reality. There are people in this world who use condoms to avoid procreation. There are couples who are infertile who can't bear children. Many women continue to have sex after menopause, in which they can no longer bear children. A lot of people enjoy oral and anal sex.

If you believe homosexuality is wrong because you can't procreate - then you must also find it wrong to use protection, to have sex with infertile people, and to have sex with older women. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe anal sex is a sin.

Did you know, not having sex also results in a lack of procreation? What does two gays having sex and not having sex have in common? Lack of pro-creation. So, according to your logic, the only time we're not sinning is if we're having sex with someone of the opposite gender for purpose of bearing children! If we aren't, it's a sin - regardless of sexual activity.

If you want to claim homosexuality is wrong because God said it's wrong, fine. Stick to that argument. Because, to be frank, your non-Bible related reasons to oppose homosexuality are either untrue, inconsistent, or aren't valid reasons to oppose consensual contracts.

When it comes to Christians, "God said it's wrong" is enough of a reason to oppose homosexual acts. But when it comes to non-Christians, you can't use God's word to force your religion on them. You need to preach the gospel in opposition to homosexuality and spread the word of God - not force everyone to abide by your religion.

Simona25 · Mar 10, 2014

Percepi said:

Sexual perversion is the syntagm that describes homosexuality, not sexual preference. Propaganda uses the double language to distract people from the truth, to falsify reality.

Percepi said:

I didn't say nothing like that. When I talk about perversion, I mean the perversion/deviation of the libido, not of the sexual act. A man that only seeks to have fun with a woman is sinful (but his libido is not perverted). This is the kind of perversion that refers to sexual urge, like you said earlier. The perversion (as understood like sexual urge) of a heterosexual man is not justified because it might result in procreation (the whole idea of "safe sex" or "sex for fun" is to prevent that to happen, right?), but, because the libido of the man is not deviated. The purpose of the libido (of the libido, and not necessarily of the sexual act! Pay attention to the difference!) goes beyond its simple satisfaction. There is a logic, a reason behind our instinctual needs. Your body is constructed in such way that it is completed by a woman, and not by a man. This is the logic of your body. Your digestive aparatus is there for a reason. If you only seek to fill your stomach and don't care about what you eat, your body will protest and you won't develop harmoniously. The respiratory aparatus is there so that you can breath fresh air (and not so that you can smoke).

Percepi said:

The sexual instinct is that of reproduction of the human species. However, this instinct is very complex and sophisticated and I wouldn't reduce it to the simplistic and dangerous conclusion that "gay sex is wrong because they can't procreate". Yes, I know what I said but I also gave credit to your intelligence. I said that a man that is atracted by a woman (even if in his conscient mind he only wants sex and nothing more) makes much more sense than a homosexual because women (by the way they are constructed) can eventually (if they want or if they are fertile) give birth to a baby. A man is sexually atracted by a woman (in his subconscient mind) because of that! The differences between man and woman make them complementarian, makes them search for one another. A man can not give birth to a baby, and to compare the impossibility of a man (as a gender) to get pregnant with the infertility of a woman (the representant of the gender that gets pregnant), and then justify homosexuality on that basis, is very very stupid.

Percepi said:

That is not according to my logic, but according to how you process what I say.

Percepi said:

What if a 13 years old child would consent to have sex with an adult? Would that make it normal?
There was a case of voraphilie, in Germany, with both men giving their consent, and yet, the one that remained alive has been judged for what he has done. My question: is voraphilie normal only because two men had a "consensual contract" about that?

Percepi said:

Sigmund Freud didn't condemned homosexuality and didn't praised it either. He was not a christian and he treated homosexuality from a medical/psychological point of view.

Simona25 · Mar 10, 2014

Percepi said:

I do not opose consensual contracts (I opose propaganda that tries to normalise the unnatural). Just because they are consensual (hence the case of consensual canibalism), they are not necessarily natural and desirable. I am against gay-propaganda, just like I am against prostitution-propaganda or any other public glorification of sin. Few years ago, in Romania, there were big boards (publicity for cigarettes) that would present a good-looking, confident american-cowboy that smoked Kent. I am glad that this lie has been banned and now, the cigarette packs have images that show the ugly truth and a warning written in giant letters about what cigarettes actually do to your body.

Also, homosexuality is not wrong only because "God said so". The purpose of a christian is not just to voluntary refrain from
transgressing God's law, but to cure/to resurrect the fallen nature. In case of a homosexual, one must wonder what is the deep cause that influenced such unnatural atraction? There are no easy cure or treatment for homosexuals, but with the love of God, a lot of understanding and pray, homosexuals can actually change. Sigmund Freud tried to find out what was the support of homosexual attraction through psychoanalysis and this practice proved to be helpful in some cases.
Now, due to the latest cultural/sexual revolutions, homosexuality is no longer debated from a medical point of view, but only politically. Some activists, even said that heterosexuality is a socio-cultural pressure that society and church impose on people (and not something natural, inherent to our bodies); this activists ignore (just like you did) the purpose behind our sexual instincts as well as the human body anatomy.

Simona25 · Mar 10, 2014

Percepi said:

That's right. I believe is a sin.

Percepi · Mar 10, 2014

Everything you said - none of it determines morality.

Homosexuality is unnatural? So what, that doesn't determine morality.
Homosexuality doesn't result in procreation? So what, that doesn't determine morality.

The only thing that determines the morality (or immorality) of homosexuality is the Bible, God's word. And, at least here in America, we have religious freedom. So a law forbidding homosexuality or the freedom for people to express their support for homosexuality (propaganda or not) is perfectly legal and can not be infringed as long as the only reason you have to oppose homosexuality stems either from religion or flawed arguments.

You don't have a case for censoring people who support homosexuality. All the excuses you come up with as to why homosexuality is wrong and why it's horrible to promote it - NONE OF IT LITERALLY MATTERS EXCEPT FOR SCRIPTURE. What you believe sex should be used for - that's your opinion.

You compared homosexuality with pedophilia, which is pretty sad since pedophilia is wrong because... well, it's pedophilia! Because children are too young to comprehend sexual choices. Because they are not old enough to make consensual decisions on their own.

Our hands weren't made for masturbation, yet it's perfectly legal to masturbate. Our legs weren't made for pushing a pedal to the floor to drive, yet it's perfectly acceptable to drive cars. Whether or not our penises and vaginas were designed or evolved for reproductive purposes does not matter, we can still legally use them however we want! And guess what, saying it's objectively wrong (outside of religious context) because it's not natural is a non-argument, BECAUSE WE DON'T BASE MORALITY ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT NATURAL.

For Christians, God's word is enough. For non-Christians, it's obviously not - you need something even secularists can get behind. And in your attempts to find secular reasons to oppose homosexuality or speech promoting homosexuality as not immoral, you don't have a case.

AgeofKnowledge · Mar 10, 2014

1. and 2.: Christians in America are being persecuted by liberals and homosexuals tyrannically wielding the government, via Civil Rights legislation intended to normalize race and gender, to severely persecute moral Americans who refuse to facilitate immoral activities (note: an activity is not a person) which violate their moral free conscience and religious convictions toward morality which are human rights and something our Bill of Rights was originally designed to protect. My assertion is a true fact and your assertion to the contrary is false.

The case of Christian small business owners are one such example who's criminal and civil lawsuits are all working their way to the U.S. Supreme Court right now. Take the case of the Colorado baker who is currently appealing his federal conviction for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. He stated that he would happily sell anyone any of his goods and services for any moral event whatsoever; however, could not violate his free moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality and facilitate an event that was normatively immoral.

He now faces imprisonment with rapists, murderers, violent criminals; a status as a criminal felon for the rest of his life (same as murderers, rapists, etc...); and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines that do not wash in bankruptcy court ensuring that both he and his family will live in abject poverty for the rest of his life.

Additionally, homosexual activitists targeted his vendors and customers engaging in economic terrorism against his business. They even went so far as to make violent threats against his minor children and threatened him with death. The threatening emails he received were shared with the Blaze a libertarian publication that acknowledged receipt of them in their news story.

“You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical b***h. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,” one e-mail said. “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell,” said another. Some said he might be shot for not making the cake, while one called for him to be homosexually raped. "Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness," their lawyer added.

All over a single cake for an event that is historically normatively immoral. This IS SEVERE persecution against Christians in the U.S. make no mistake.

Threats of physical violence against those who do not support and facilitate homosexual behavior is nothing new. Last May, for example, 16-year-old Madeleine McAulay was targeted with hate and death threats after she posted a video on YouTube supporting traditional marriage. All over the U.S. it continues in and out of court and usually associated with the now normal death threats and threats of extreme violence from the left.

In 2012, Texas-based Liberty Institute and Washington-based Family Research Council produced a report listing numerous recent legal cases showing that U.S. government agencies around the U.S. are violating the human rights of and Constitutional rights of Christians by trying to push Christian expression out the door and criminalize Christians for that expression: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12H29.pdf

“It is dramatic,” says Liberty Institute Founder Kelly Shackleford, of the recent hike in reported incidents of persecution. “I have been doing these types of cases for almost 25 years now. I have never seen the levels of attacks like these and how quickly they are now proliferating.” Shackleford says government, from schools to social programs, is the ringleader.

“There are children being prohibited from writing Merry Christmas to the soldiers, senior citizens being banned from praying over their meals in the Senior Center, the VA banning the mention of God in military funerals, numerous attempts to have veterans memorials torn down if they have any religious symbols such as a cross, and I could go on and on,” Shackleford said.

It's gotten so bad that even the leftist oriented ACLU has begun agitating to stop the persecution of Christians which homosexuals and liberals in the U.S. are engaging in within and without their positions in government.

Several legal coalitions have also stepped up because they see a need something as government was not only involved in the persecution but also failing to adequately protect Christians from homosexual and liberal extremists and their anti-Christian virility.

According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany (geopolitical analyst) in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in America is taking us?"

Maybe we should ask the woman in Houston, Texas who was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween informing her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued.

And worldwide, Pew Research reported in 2014 that "Christians continue to be the world's most oppressed religious group, with persecution reported in 110 countries." They stayed that harassment against Christians for their faith extended to 151 countries.

In light of the facts, I would tell you to take your own advice and NOT "be an imbecile."

3. Now you asked me if I know what the First Amendment is. Yes, I do.

As I stated in another thread, the founding fathers were interested in a cooperation between church and state not state over church or church over state which U.S. historians refer to as Jeffersonianism which was based in the natural-law view of early America allowing for a fruitful Jeffersonianism (in contrast to secularism and reconstructionism) that remained relatively stable until the Stone v Graham in 1980.

Against secularism, Jeffersonianism denies that there is no divinely given moral (natural) law as a basis for government; against reconstructionism, Jeffersonianism denies that any special revelation from God is the divinely prescribed basis for civil government. It also denies that any national church should be the established religion of the land, thus allowing religious freedom of belief for all groups.

By basing civil government in "Nature's Law," which comes from "God," American morality was established without establishing any religion, except a broad belief in the Creator God, who gave these "unalienable rights," a belief that, according to God, is part of the general (or natural) revelation to all humankind (Rom. 1:19-20).

Thus, by basing government in natural, universal, moral law, Jeffersonianism avoids antinomianism (secularism) on the one hand and state-mandated religion (reconstructionism) on the other which allowed a Bill of Rights to be drafted that curbed government aggression toward natural law with it's requisite human rights in the areas of speech and religion and also that of, as Jefferson asserted "a free moral conscience."

Their political thought extended from antiquity with philosophers like Cicero (106–43 B.C.) who recognized that some laws were contrary to natural law (Cicero De Leg. 2.5.13–14) and Roman jurists that understood a legal decision could be reached that accorded with legal principle but was not fair right through to men like Aquinas who said, "God governs all creation. Natural law is the participation of rational creatures in this eternal law. Human law is the application of natural law to local communities" to men like G C Berkouwer who said, "Natural law therefore represents merely the constancy and regularity of the divine purposes. The natural order no less than the human expresses God’s personal control."
All of the founding fathers writings incorporate this thought including their Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. So naturally, all U.S. precedent through the 20th century did too.

This idea that one can extend civil rights legislation to groups of people based on historically normative immoral behaviors such as homosexuality, beastility, pedaphilia, etc... and then allow people engaged in such normatively immoral behaviors to wield the U.S. government as an agent of tyranny imprisoning and bankrupting every normatively moral American in the U.S. who refuses to facilitate a historically normative immoral activity when ordered to do so is a brand new development directly opposing everything that preceded it in the U.S. which was originally designed to prevent such a thing from occurring.

Understand that in its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever is actually right or wrong independent of the values, mores, or legal constructs held by any particular people or culture. Normative immorality has been clearly defined in Western normative ethics for a very long time.

The problem is that liberals no longer respect liberty as they did under classical liberalism. Somewhere the freedom to let others say and be in accordance with natural law which posits a normative ethics with respect to human rights and law transitioned into a bizarre idea that a person’s speech, beliefs and attitudes are inseparable from who he or she is as an individual and community participant and anyone who refuses to facilitate an activity that is historically normatively immoral, if it is protected by a civil rights law that itself may be normatively immoral, must be severely persecuted in a tyrannica way by the state.

The progressive agenda isn't the simple acceptance of persons who are different or believe or behave differently in line with classical tolerance but rather an intolerant tyranical wielding of state force against all who retain a normative morality. And THAT should give even liberals a moment of pause to reflect what monsters they are becoming as they agitate for an American gulag respite with the mass imprisonment and bankrupting of every moral American small business owner in the United States of America that refuses to facilitate and immoral event though they would happily offer ALL of their goods and services to ANYONE for ANY normative moral purpose whatsoever.

That should give you pause to reflect on the monster that YOU are becoming.

Percepi said:

Percepi · Mar 10, 2014

No, they aren't.

Please don't use words you don't understand the meaning of. Christians are not being persecuted. You can argue their rights are being violated, but to suggest they're being persecuted by homosexuality laws is just absurd.

If I tell people, "Homosexuality isn't wrong", I AM NOT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS. If you call that a violation of YOUR rights, then I can claim you're violating the rights of others by making statements such as, "Homosexuality is wrong."
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS?!

Keep up with me here! Because I've already said this time and time again.

I agree that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want - whether its' for religions reasons or not. I CAN AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. However, this is NOT A REASON TO BAN HOMOSEXUALITY OR FREE SPEECH. This is all the more reason to give business owners the rights to serve whomever they want.

Instead of fighting to give rights back to business owners, you fight to take away rights of homosexuals or those who speak in favor of homosexuality.

Not all homosexuals are like that. There have been plenty of gays who have been beaten to death by Christians, should we ban Christianity? No, we should enforce the law in which it's illegal to beat people up and murder them. The same goes with death threats. Homosexuals aren't magically allowed to harm the business owner, if they do, they WILL be arrested - just like the Christians who have beaten to death homosexuals.

I'm not the one stereotyping all homosexuals as violent. That would be you.

You also brought up some other points that are unrelated to the topic - such as soldiers being prohibited from praying. This is wrong, but it's not something that only effects Christians.

Yeah, I'm not going to read the rest of your nonsense since your very first paragraph is dead wrong.

Our founders decided state and church would remain separate. You don't have to look any further than the Fist Amendment itself.

Keep in mind, this debate is about prohibiting people from speaking in favor of homosexuality.

I'll concede that there are some occasions in which people are having their rights violated, but to suggest Christianity is being prosecuted is a huge overstatement. It's also wrong to argue that homosexuals don't deserve rights because SOME homosexuals threatened the life of a shop owner. Again, this would be like trying to ban Christianity because a few Christians beat to death homosexuals.

I already said that I support the right of business owners to refuse service to whomever they want. But I also support free-speech.

Percepi · Mar 10, 2014

Just to make sure you understand, I'll concede there are injustices and Christians are occasionally the victims. But, let's look at the man who was sued for refusing service to homosexuals. His arrest had nothing to do with his religion. If he was an atheist, he would have still been arrested.

Regardless, even if you make the point homosexuals are trying to persecute non-homosexuals, I'll still disagree by pointing out your statement as being far too broad and stereotypical. Not all homosexuals are violent leftists who want to take away our rights. Even if they were, it doesn't change the fact they would be allowed to express their views via the First Amendment - being allowed freedom of speech.

So, before you skim through my above post, which was sloppily worded I admit, keep in mind that this is the point I'm making.

AgeofKnowledge · Mar 11, 2014

Percepi said:

Yes they are. I just provided you with objective empirical examples. If I hand you a rock and you deny receiving a rock, then then that tells me there's something wrong with you. Maybe repetition will help. Let's try again.

Christians in America are being persecuted by liberals and homosexuals tyrannically wielding the government, via Civil Rights legislation intended to normalize race and gender, to severely persecute moral Americans who refuse to facilitate immoral activities (note: an activity is not a person) which violate their moral free conscience and religious convictions toward morality which are human rights and something our Bill of Rights was originally designed to protect. My assertion is a true fact and your assertion to the contrary is false.

The case of Christian small business owners are one such example who's criminal and civil lawsuits are all working their way to the U.S. Supreme Court right now. Take the case of the Colorado baker who is currently appealing his federal conviction for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. He stated that he would happily sell anyone any of his goods and services for any moral event whatsoever; however, could not violate his free moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality and facilitate an event that was normatively immoral.

He now faces imprisonment with rapists, murderers, violent criminals; a status as a criminal felon for the rest of his life (same as murderers, rapists, etc...); and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines that do not wash in bankruptcy court ensuring that both he and his family will live in abject poverty for the rest of his life.

Additionally, homosexual activitists targeted his vendors and customers engaging in economic terrorism against his business. They even went so far as to make violent threats against his minor children and threatened him with death. The threatening emails he received were shared with the Blaze a libertarian publication that acknowledged receipt of them in their news story.

“You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical b***h. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,” one e-mail said. “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell,” said another. Some said he might be shot for not making the cake, while one called for him to be homosexually raped. "Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness," their lawyer added.

All over a single cake for an event that is historically normatively immoral. This IS SEVERE persecution against Christians in the U.S. make no mistake.

Threats of physical violence against those who do not support and facilitate homosexual behavior is nothing new. Last May, for example, 16-year-old Madeleine McAulay was targeted with hate and death threats after she posted a video on YouTube supporting traditional marriage. All over the U.S. it continues in and out of court and usually associated with the now normal death threats and threats of extreme violence from the left.

In 2012, Texas-based Liberty Institute and Washington-based Family Research Council produced a report listing numerous recent legal cases showing that U.S. government agencies around the U.S. are violating the human rights of and Constitutional rights of Christians by trying to push Christian expression out the door and criminalize Christians for that expression: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12H29.pdf

“It is dramatic,” says Liberty Institute Founder Kelly Shackleford, of the recent hike in reported incidents of persecution. “I have been doing these types of cases for almost 25 years now. I have never seen the levels of attacks like these and how quickly they are now proliferating.” Shackleford says government, from schools to social programs, is the ringleader.

“There are children being prohibited from writing Merry Christmas to the soldiers, senior citizens being banned from praying over their meals in the Senior Center, the VA banning the mention of God in military funerals, numerous attempts to have veterans memorials torn down if they have any religious symbols such as a cross, and I could go on and on,” Shackleford said.

It's gotten so bad that even the leftist oriented ACLU has begun agitating to stop the persecution of Christians which homosexuals and liberals in the U.S. are engaging in within and without their positions in government.

Several legal coalitions have also stepped up because they see a need something as government was not only involved in the persecution but also failing to adequately protect Christians from homosexual and liberal extremists and their anti-Christian virility.

According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany (geopolitical analyst) in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in America is taking us?"

Maybe we should ask the woman in Houston, Texas who was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween informing her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued.

And worldwide, Pew Research reported in 2014 that "Christians continue to be the world's most oppressed religious group, with persecution reported in 110 countries." They stayed that harassment against Christians for their faith extended to 151 countries.

Ok. Maybe repeating the facts will result in you exiting your denial and you'll stop repeating your false assertion that Christians aren't being persecuted by liberals and homosexuals in the manner I just shared that, reality, are.

Now the rest of your post is very ignorant in light of what I just shared regarding natural law and human rights. Of course I understand what free speech is. You; however, obviously do NOT as you ignorantly stated that if someone exercises their free speech and says something that you don't like then their human right to free speech is to be violated by the government. I don't know what you're smoking but you obviously have no idea what free speech is to make that false assertion.

And furthermore, you are not reading my posts because I already stated repeatedly that the cases under discussion have NOTHING to do with refusal to serve a person but rather involve moral Americans refusing to violate their free moral conscience (a human right protected under natural law) and their religious conviction toward morality (something the founding fathers intended to protect) and facilitate an activity that is properly defined as normatively immoral in a historical context.

Nobody's talking about banning homosexuality or making it illegal. Nobody's talking about persecuting homosexuals. Obviously if it's wrong to persecute homosexuals then how much more is it wrong to persecute moral people.

We're talking about liberals extending civil rights legislation to people based on the normatively historical immoral behaviors they choose to engage in which are homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, etc... and then using that as the justification to exercise tyranny on moral Americans that refuse to facilitate immoral activities.

We've already stated that activities are not persons and ALL goods and services are offered to anyone for any historically normatively moral purpose whatsoever.

Maybe if you would actually read my posts, you'd understand what you're replying to rather than screed a bunch of nonsense out that has nothing to do with what I've said.

AgeofKnowledge · Mar 11, 2014

Wrong. His arrest had EVERYTHING to do with him refusing to violate his religious convictions toward a historical normative morality and free moral conscience (something that has been protected in this country by the Bill of Rights, thats very creation is due to natural law, right up to the present).

Let's hope U.S. Supreme Court doesn't break with the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights since 1776 and decide that it's OK to round up potentially millions of Christians and imprison them and bankrupt them and their families for not facilitating events that are historically normatively immoral. If they do then the U.S. becomes no better than the Soviet Union was with respect to tyrannously severely persecuting its religious population on behalf of intolerant voters such as yourself that would destroy a moral family over a cake or an order of flowers.

This, of course, shows that you are morally blighted and no better than the state atheists of the 20th century who engaged in such tyranny.

And as I stated, the baker never refused to service homosexuals because they are homosexuals. He stated that he would happily provide ALL of his goods and services to homosexuals for any normative moral purpose whatsoever but he would not facilitate normative immoral events or activities as to do so would violate his free moral conscience (a human right under natural law) and his religious convictions toward morality (something the founding fathers protected with the Bill of Rights based on natural law).

Carefully read: http://christianchat.com/christian-...-criminalize-homosexuality-4.html#post1440780

Percepi said:

PeterPolitik · Mar 11, 2014

Simona25 said:

your conscience? your knowledge of right and wrong?

i thought christians weren't of the world. so why are they now a community of people that includes the world?
i happen to agree with putin's laws. that's politics, and assuming he has his federation's ultimate fate in mind, why wouldn't he pass laws that this country never cared about (with the exception of the short lived protestant, then roman catholic decency leagues that tried to stop the sewage of hollywood from seeping into society)?

i'm for political action. many christians aren't. if they aren't, why do they even bother discussing subjects?

PeterPolitik · Mar 11, 2014

AgeofKnowledge said:

people around the world are being persecuted by liberals and so called conservatives wielding the government via human rights violation smoke screens. what are you doing about that?

Percepi · Mar 11, 2014

AgeofKnowledge said:

Again, he got in trouble for refusing service to gays. He would have gotten in trouble REGARDLESS AS TO WHETHER IT WAS FOR HIS RELIGIOUS REASONS OR NOT. So, again, you completely ignored what I said.

Other than that, you're attacking a red herring. You're trying to avoid the subject of free speech and focus on how homosexuality and current broken laws are affecting people.

Good job, instead of fighting to give people and business owners back their rights, you fight to take away the rights of gays and those who speak on behalf of the gay community.

Please don't take what I say out of context. That statement refers to what has been suggested by countless other people in this room. Perhaps, if you payed attention not only to my posts but the posts of the people I've been debating with, you would understand that I was pointing out the flaws to such absurd idea.

We're talking about homosexuality, not bestiality or pedophilia or any other sexual acts.

I'm done debating you since you're insufferable to try and communicate with.

Simona25 · Mar 11, 2014

PeterPolitik said:

I am against politicianism. And I do make an ontological distinction between state and country, population and people, individuals and persons.
The words country, people and persons have that ontological dimension (for me) that allows me to talk about community. Of course, that, because of politics, these words will soon lose their meaning (if that haven't already happen) and the political correctness will dictate what's good or wrong, not the conscience of the people.

Russia has a majority of people that oppose gay-propaganda (gay-marriage and gay-adoption). Every gay march in Russia (and in eastern european countries) is being boycotted by the opposition. I do not know what is behind Putin's decision, but I do know that this law is accepted by a considerable majority.

Simona25 · Mar 11, 2014

Percepi said:

Morality is very subjective. Christianity is not just a set of moral rules, it's much more than that. If all the human struggle stands only in the attemtp to reach morality (or to be moral and nothing more) than God's incarnation, crucification and resurrection are in vain (but this is the topic of another discussion).

Percepi said:

People that oppose homosexuality do that based on the Bible (which is considered to be the revelation of God's Word). I have tried to give you arguments that homosexuality is a deviation, based on something else than the Bible, because you are not a christian. So, I tried to find a common ground with you. You don't have to look only into the Bible to learn about the revelation of the archetypal couple (Adam and Eve) and to understand that the most fulfilling and harmonious union is that between a man and a woman.

America has relativise morality according to what each separate individual think. Whether that is good or bad, I do not comment, nor care.
In my country, also, there are few individuals that do not share the same values and principles as the majority. They ignore the historical and cultural background of the country and try to relativise the truth. I do not think that's fair. It might be political correct, but it's not fair. It's not fair because all what our ancestors did was fight in order to keep this territory (that is now Romania) andto save our religious identity from muslims and later, from communists.
So, when a country has based for 2000 years its values on christian values, and people prefered to die rather than sell their souls, I think it's unfair when a minority tries to take that away and reverse the values. I do not wish that my country becomes a copy of what America is. I respect your country and I do not dictate what should be right or wrong in your country. I expect that western countries understand our values and respect them. Only because in your country gay parades and gay-marriage is something legal and normal, it doesn't mean that it should be the same in all countries. Only because in some countries polygamy is legal and normal, that doesn't mean that it has to be in my country also. Only because muslims aprove marriage between first-degree cousins, that doesn't mean that we have to embrace that. If you think that Putin alone is against gay-propaganda, than you are very mistaken. It's a large majority that finds the whole cinema with gay-parades and other western "traditions" insulting and offensive to their own traditions.

Percepi said:

For you, none of it matters. For the majority in eastern european countries, it does. Gay-propaganda is an attempt of globalisation and uniformisation of human values. Of course that these phenomena can't be stopped for ever. But, as long as we can save our principles and values, and stand for the truth (not your truth, but Jesus Christ's truth) we will try to do that.

Percepi said:

I did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia. I only brought further your idea of "consensual contract". In reality, a 13 years old pre-teenager can make choices. If it is not legal is because the society and culture disagrees with that, not because he can not chose. You look at pedophilia from a legal point of view. And when you say that pedophilia is wrong only because the 13 years old can not make a choice, you prove that in your head, something is normal/anormal only if the law says so. In reality, pedophilia is anormal not only because the child can not make a choice, but especially because the attraction that an adult has for someone much younger is not normal. You agree with sexual deviation only because two adults can have a "consensual contract". In this logic, you should also agree with the consensual contract between a brother and a sister (adults, of course), or the consensual contract between two adults, regarding voraphilia (fantesy of a man that wishes to be eaten by another man; there has been a case in Germany and the man that accomplished the sick fantesy of the other one, got arrested for murder).

Percepi said:

Wow...such moving and touching sensibility and profoundness in your understanding.

Percepi said:

Neither have the gays when they try to impose something unnatural on people.

Simona25 · Mar 11, 2014

Percepi said:

Unfortunately, AIDS is a disease that is very frequent in the homosexual and bisexual life-style...

AgeofKnowledge · Mar 11, 2014

Agitating for a plurality in which people have liberty. Replacing an old tyranny for a new tyranny, as is occurring with the rise of a rabid new modern liberal/progressive intolerant tyranny in no way accomplishes that plurality in which everyone's liberty is respected.

PeterPolitik said:

AgeofKnowledge · Mar 11, 2014

Percepi said:

He got in trouble for refusing to facilitate a homosexual activity that violates his religious convictions toward a historical normative morality and free moral conscience (something that has been protected in this country by the Bill of Rights which is based on natural law).

Percepi said:

No. I refuted it. If murderers, for example, are extended civil rights legislation based on their historically normative immoral behavior and a Christian knife shop owner refuses to sell them a knife after they declare they intend to murder someone with it because doing so would violate their free moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality as explained above and so is imprisoned and bankrupted in a manner that ensures he and his family remain in abject poverty the basis is also a religious objection by definition.

You are attempting to state that someone who refuses to facilitate a historically normatively immoral event or activity because it violates their free moral conscience (e.g. a human right protected by natural law) AND their religious convictions toward morality (something protected by the Bill of Rights) has nothing to do with religion. Of course you're wrong. Of course it does too.

Percepi said:

Wrong again. A homosexual can say anything they like for all I care and so can a Christian. But free speech is not about imprisoning every Christian in the nation that refuses to facilitate a historically normatively immoral activity or event. Where you lunatics get that idea is beyond me and it's a patently false definition of what free speech actually is. Free speech is not about wielding the government as a weapon of mass destruction against everyone that disagrees with you OBVIOUSLY.

Percepi said:

FALSE. I've argue for a plurality in a free marketplace in which the liberty of both groups is protected. YOU and people who think like you are agitating for the opposite. You are agitating for the violation of Christian's human rights and the wielding of government as an agency of severe tyrannous persecution upon them for refusing to facilitate historically normatively immoral events and activities that violate their moral conscience and Christian religion. You are tyrants no different than Stalinists. The religious liberty toward a historical normative morality is already natural law and must be respected in the rule of law or tyranny is the result and you seek to deny them that and severely persecute them for it instead.

Percepi said:

Yes but the ramifications are far wider for if civil rights protections can be extended to groups of people based on the sexually normatively immoral behaviors that they engage in then that is a legal template and legal precedent for other groups as well. Already three other groups formed around normatively sexual immoral behaviors are agitating for the same civil rights protections arguing the exact same position. They are polyamorists/polygamists, bestiality groups, and pedophilia groups.

Simona25 · Mar 11, 2014

Angela53510 said:

Angela, you are right: we are all sinners, and we are no better than gays. We must repent our sins, not boast about them.
Look at this image bellow:

Gloria-Steinem-Making-Abortion-Cool-While-Flaunting-Illuminati-Symbol-Video.jpg

I do not judge women that had an abortion, I do not agree with abortion either. But, is abortion something to be proud of or something to boast about? What a satanic serenity on the woman's face!
Gay-propaganda tries to destroy the feeling of shame (a feeling that might prevent some people from sinning); they promote a hedonist-nihilist philosophy where everything is justified by pleasure. There is a great danger when the sinner is no longer awear of his sin (he can no longer repent) and is encouraged in a handicapped life-style.

This fragment from The catcher in the rye, J.D. Salinger, pretty much expresses the frustration and indignation of the deepest common sense towards the satanisation and the huge wave of stupidity that reigns over this world:

"But while I was sitting down, I saw something that drove me crazy. Somebody'd written "**** you" on the wall. It drove me damn near crazy. I thought how Phoebe and all the other little kids would see it, and how they'd wonder what the hell it meant, and then finally some dirty kid would tell them – all cockeyed, naturally – what it meant, and how they'd all think about it and maybe even worry about it for a couple of days. I kept wanting to kill whoever'd written it. I figured it was some perverty bum that'd sneaked in the school late at night to take a leak or something and then wrote it on the wall. I kept picturing myself catching him at it, and how I'd smash his head on the stone steps till he was good and goddam dead and bloody. But I knew, too, I wouldn't have the guts to do it. I knew that. That made me even more depressed. (25.16)"

And the sad conclusion is that we can't do nothing about that. Dostoievsky said that "man is phenomenally stupid"...and I think he knew something when he said that.

IloveyouGod · Mar 11, 2014

I REALLY admire it when the government take a stand against a specific sin because for example the problem of the sin of homosexual is that it is accepted by the society to an extent that those homosexual people think it's their right to be acknowledged by everyone including the government. Not only that, but they are also proud of being homosexual!!!! Which is very dangerous. Once you are proud by your sin, then you'll never repent and admit your sin and ask for forgiveness.

The government stands against those who kill n' steal. But unfortunately not because they are sinning against God, but rather because they are harming others. So it became a law that you cannot kill or steal. But apparently our government doesn't see homosexual as harming other people. When it is a sin that hurts God Himself!!

I believe the government should stand against homosexual too, exactly like standing against killers and thieves. I believe government should help the church and stand against sin instead of making a certain sin accepted by the society and so harder for the church to preach against this specific sin.

kayem77 said:

What Should Christians Think of Governments That Criminalize Homosexuality?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Banned

Banned

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

PeterPolitik

Guest

PeterPolitik

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Banned

IloveyouGod

Guest