One-Third Of Millennials Have Left Their Religion Because Of Anti-Gay Policies

[SonInMe]

Protection of the moral fiber that keeps this nation the greatest on earth is not big government. Its one of the few areas the government overlooks that should be its role in society.

Homosexuality and the promotion of it, the normative of sexual perversions does hurt our nation and world. Sanctioning gay marriage is a direct attack upon the foundations of society, the family. There was a reason why God made man and women and that was so every aspect to raise a child well would be present in the home, under God. Homosexuality is a blatant attack upon that moral system.

I tell you what, if laws, which do define the morality of the society under them, are not based upon christian principle, they are corrupt. No theocracy here but scripture either defines good and bad or it does not.....and it does.

I know liberalism allows liberals to feel good about their sins, but I would like to think christian's god is the God of Abraham, Jesus Christ our lord and not liberalism.

 

[Percepi]

Protection of the moral fiber that keeps this nation the greatest on earth is not big government. Its one of the few areas the government overlooks that should be its role in society.

It's wrong for people to rob shops with guns. Oh, me? This isn't a gun I'm holding, it's a measure to prevent you from wearing pink pants. Completely different.

Homosexuality and the promotion of it, the normative of sexual perversions does hurt our nation and world.

How so and what scientific proof do you have of this?

Sanctioning gay marriage is a direct attack upon the foundations of society, the family.

Except marriage doesn't belong solely to Christians. Notice how atheists, Jews, and Muslims are all allowed to get married.

There was a reason why God made man and women

Except we live in America were we aren't forced to accept this statement as fact.

and that was so every aspect to raise a child well would be present in the home, under God.

This completely ignores the idea of America being a nation of religious freedom.

I tell you what, if laws, which do define the morality of the society under them, are not based upon christian principle, they are corrupt.

Then you need to be honest and state that you do NOT support the U.S. Constitution and that you believe America should be run by a Christian church.

I know liberalism allows liberals to feel good about their sins, but I would like to think christian's god is the God of Abraham, Jesus Christ our lord and not liberalism.

Refer to "religious freedom".

If you can state that you DO NOT support the U.S. Constitution, then I'll concede that there's no contradiction or double-standards in your view of the government's role. Of course, religion based governments are doomed to fail for their own reasons - but we'll see where this conversation goes.

I'm pro-freedom. I support the non-coercion principle. If you believe something is immoral, but the actions don't effect you personally, then you need to use words to convince people to change their act, not guns (government force).

 

[crossnote]

It's a bit more complicated than that, as you know. I personally know many struggling Christians who left the faith because of the Right Wing culture war.

People can and do get turned away from God by other people. Jesus warned about this, and said he will judge people harshly who turn away the young ones.

I just hope that some people here soften their approach.

perhaps they are struggling because they're focused on the culture and it's ups and downs rather than God's unchanging Word.
I use a soft approach with those who struggle to be rid of their sin whatever it may be but for those who flaunt and revel in sin, don't expect a soft approach from me.

 

[SonInMe]

''It's wrong for people to rob shops with guns. Oh, me? This isn't a gun I'm holding, it's a measure to prevent you from wearing pink pants. Completely different.''

I don't know any laws against pink pants...this says nothing.

''How so and what scientific proof do you have of this?''

I am a christian. I have lived 54 years, 17 with the Lord. The bible is infallible and I believe in it.

STD's and hepetitis are more easily transmitted by homosexual sex.

The average liefspan of a homosexual is 50. Their incomes do tend to be higher but that's amoral.

Men are men and women are women, they are different and their differences combine to raise children in the most effective ways. Homosexuality is sexual perversion.

''Sanctioning gay marriage is a direct attack upon the foundations of society, the family.''

''Except marriage doesn't belong solely to Christians. Notice how atheists, Jews, and Muslims are all allowed to get married''

This is not a response to what I said. I have no idea what this statement has to do with my statement.

''There was a reason why God made man and women''

''Except we live in America were we aren't forced to accept this statement as fact.''

...and this is a christian website, yer gonna hear christianity a lot here.

''and that was so every aspect to raise a child well would be present in the home, under God.''

''This completely ignores the idea of America being a nation of religious freedom.''

You are free to be secular, this is true but it does not change the fact that under God is better than not being under God. ( That fact of this forum being in a christian website once again )

''I tell you what, if laws, which do define the morality of the society under them, are not based upon christian principle, they are corrupt.''

''Then you need to be honest and state that you do NOT support the U.S. Constitution and that you believe America should be run by a Christian church.''

I am not in favor of theocracy but to me, once again, a christian, biblical principle is absolute truth. There is no better foundation than that. What the bible says is good, is good all the time, for every man and woman no matter the culture or difference. All christians believe this.

The constitution was founded in christian principle as well, by men who believed in Jesus Christ.

You understand that freedom is the acceptance of more personal responsibility? No bailouts from the government. No government programs. Life is on you and your's. That's freedom.

 

[Elizabeth619]

Instead of bringing people to the Gospels, Right Wingers are turning a generation away in droves because of their Big Government policies of hating on one particular sinner. Desperately wanting the Government to police people's individual's lives, is driving away young people who believe in Liberty. Unable to point to a single passage in the Gospels that commands big government to police homosexuals, Right Wing fanatics are being perceived as massive hypocrites.

The curious and bizarre emphasis only on Homosexuals and abortion, two things that are easily used as a political pawn for Republicans, is literally destroying Christianity from within.

One-Third Of Millennials Have Left Their Religion Because Of Anti-Gay Policies: Survey

There isnt scripture that the government should police anyone, yet there is scripture that Christians are to submit to government authority. Of course we are to obey God over man so if a law conflicts with Gods law it is out Christian duty to not obey.
One thing that many people dont realize is when Peter said to submit to authority it was during the time of a very very very bad Roman emperor. Historical record indicate this was a sick, twisted, and a downright pervert. He was bisexual, and a pedophile. He also had his wife and his mother killed. So, unless a law is outright against God we are to obey. Even then we aren't to refuse punishment. Peter even rejoiced being in prison that he was worthy enough to suffer for the sake of God.

In saying all that I will admit that I am guilty along with other believers that we are quite unforgiving when it comes to homosexuality. Any God fearing Christians knows that God does not condone homosexual acts but that gives no one the right to hate or discriminate against them. There is obviously no easier way to turn someone from God than by spreading hate. One can disapprove of homosexuality without being a total hypocrite.
!. No sin is greater than the other. All sin is offensive to God so singling out homosexuals while ignoring others makes the "Christian" look like a fool.
2. Jesus fellowshiped with sinners, and some of those sinners may have been homosexual. If Jesus was good enough and humble enough to fellowship with them then why are we discriminating them? How can we witness to them if we want nothing to do with them? Not meaning shoving religion down their throats, but just be a nice, loving and compassionate friend may be just enough to plant a seed in a sinner to get them interested in salvation.
3. As Christians we need to decide how to righteously handle situations that go against God. No approving of sin is not hating someone so one needs to be careful how they handle situations with sinners to make sure they dont present that vibe.
4. The government cannot make anyone "accept" homosexuals or other sinners. They are protected under civil law like anyone else, and discriminating against them can get the "Christian" in trouble. Even if a Christian is justified then they should follow Peters example and accept their punishment because anarchy is not supported in scripture.

 

[biscuit]

There isnt scripture that the government should police anyone, yet there is scripture that Christians are to submit to government authority. Of course we are to obey God over man so if a law conflicts with Gods law it is out Christian duty to not obey.
One thing that many people dont realize is when Peter said to submit to authority it was during the time of a very very very bad Roman emperor. Historical record indicate this was a sick, twisted, and a downright pervert. He was bisexual, and a pedophile. He also had his wife and his mother killed. So, unless a law is outright against God we are to obey. Even then we aren't to refuse punishment. Peter even rejoiced being in prison that he was worthy enough to suffer for the sake of God.

In saying all that I will admit that I am guilty along with other believers that we are quite unforgiving when it comes to homosexuality. Any God fearing Christians knows that God does not condone homosexual acts but that gives no one the right to hate or discriminate against them. There is obviously no easier way to turn someone from God than by spreading hate. One can disapprove of homosexuality without being a total hypocrite.
!. No sin is greater than the other. All sin is offensive to God so singling out homosexuals while ignoring others makes the "Christian" look like a fool.
2. Jesus fellowshiped with sinners, and some of those sinners may have been homosexual. If Jesus was good enough and humble enough to fellowship with them then why are we discriminating them? How can we witness to them if we want nothing to do with them? Not meaning shoving religion down their throats, but just be a nice, loving and compassionate friend may be just enough to plant a seed in a sinner to get them interested in salvation.
3. As Christians we need to decide how to righteously handle situations that go against God. No approving of sin is not hating someone so one needs to be careful how they handle situations with sinners to make sure they dont present that vibe.
4. The government cannot make anyone "accept" homosexuals or other sinners. They are protected under civil law like anyone else, and discriminating against them can get the "Christian" in trouble. Even if a Christian is justified then they should follow Peters example and accept their punishment because anarchy is not supported in scripture.

Excellent Post. "Love the person but condemn the act"

 

[Percepi]

I don't know any laws against pink pants...this says nothing.

You obviously missed the point of the metaphor.

I am a christian. I have lived 54 years, 17 with the Lord. The bible is infallible and I believe in it.

Good, you don't have to be gay.

STD's and hepetitis are more easily transmitted by homosexual sex.

Let's allow adults to decide whether or not it's worth the risk.

Men are men and women are women, they are different and their differences combine to raise children in the most effective ways. Homosexuality is sexual perversion.

Whites are whites and blacks are blacks. amirite?

It doesn't matter if men are men and women are women. This argument accomplishes absolutely nothing.

...and this is a christian website, yer gonna hear christianity a lot here.

I'm not telling you to stop being Christian. I'm just saying that it's wrong to force everyone to be Christian. I'm a libertarian, but I don't believe we should force everyone to hold libertarian views.

You are free to be secular, this is true but it does not change the fact that under God is better than not being under God. ( That fact of this forum being in a christian website once again )

I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong to be gay, I'm arguing that it's wrong to force people not to be gay.

I think smoking is stupid. It's a bad habit and nobody should waste their time giving themselves lung cancer. But, I still support other people's rights to smoke.

You don't have to support homosexual actions to support their rights.

I am not in favor of theocracy but to me, once again, a christian, biblical principle is absolute truth. There is no better foundation than that. What the bible says is good, is good all the time, for every man and woman no matter the culture or difference. All christians believe this.

We're discussing the role of government, not Christian principles.

The constitution was founded in christian principle as well, by men who believed in Jesus Christ.

1. The Constitution was not based on Christian principles. It was based on limited government - which includes a secular government.

2. Most of our founding fathers were deists.

You understand that freedom is the acceptance of more personal responsibility? No bailouts from the government. No government programs. Life is on you and your's. That's freedom.

For the most part, yes.

 

[Nautilus]

Life is on you and your's. That's freedom.

So why care if life is on the individual who they want to spend it sleeping with? Or married too? Now you're infringing on their freedom.

 

[Stephen63]

Instead of bringing people to the Gospels, Right Wingers are turning a generation away in droves because of their Big Government policies of hating on one particular sinner. Desperately wanting the Government to police people's individual's lives, is driving away young people who believe in Liberty. Unable to point to a single passage in the Gospels that commands big government to police homosexuals, Right Wing fanatics are being perceived as massive hypocrites.

The curious and bizarre emphasis only on Homosexuals and abortion, two things that are easily used as a political pawn for Republicans, is literally destroying Christianity from within.

One-Third Of Millennials Have Left Their Religion Because Of Anti-Gay Policies: Survey

Isn't that what their "handlers" (1%) want them to do?

 

[SonInMe]

Because to love someone you draw lines over behavior that harms them.

Never said I wanted a law against homosexuality but marriage is a completely different thing. To allow gay marriage will...

attack the foundations of society, the family.

promote and condone a harmful activity.

lead to other perversions ( which has already happened in the Sister Wive's trial )

I would have no problem with a law against the promotion of homosexuality though.

 

[Percepi]

Because to love someone you draw lines over behavior that harms them.

This is what you do with your kids. An adult does not have any authority over another adult unless bound by a contract both parties consented to.

Never said I wanted a law against homosexuality but marriage is a completely different thing. To allow gay marriage will...

attack the foundations of society, the family.

If the foundations stem from Christianity, then you break the First Amendment.

promote and condone a harmful activity.

Zero evidence for this.

lead to other perversions ( which has already happened in the Sister Wive's trial )

Zero evidence for this as well.

Keep in mind, there are gays out there who are pedophiles and into sex with animals. But there are a lot of straight people who are pedophiles and dig animals as well. Most people, gay and straight, are not pedophiles, nor do they want to have sex with animals.

I would have no problem with a law against the promotion of homosexuality though.

This would violate our freedom of speech.

 

[Desdichado]

Am I the only one who reads the changing of the definition of marriage as an egregious overstep of state power?

If a government can overturn a concept and institution as old as the dawn of man with a few flick of the wrists, we have to re-think the level of power we give these people.

 

[SonInMe]

In the trial of the Sister Wive's tv show cast, their lawyer, successfully used the gay marriage laws ion many states to win his case for polygamy.

While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:

• Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person’s risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves.

Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

I do not believe that is a conservative website but its clear homosexual men face a higher risk of std's.

These are two websites that duke it out over truths and myths of the homosexual community...judge for yourself..

SPLC's ten "myths" about homosexuality turn out to be ten truths

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[Percepi]

In the trial of the Sister Wive's tv show cast, their lawyer, successfully used the gay marriage laws ion many states to win his case for polygamy.

While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:

• Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person’s risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves.

Gay Men and STDs | Sexually Transmitted Diseases | CDC

I do not believe that is a conservative website but its clear homosexual men face a higher risk of std's.

These are two websites that duke it out over truths and myths of the homosexual community...judge for yourself..

SPLC's ten "myths" about homosexuality turn out to be ten truths

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

So what?

Two consenting adults - if they want to take the risk, it's THEIR decision. We should make people aware of risks, but we shouldn't infringe on their rights.

 

[SonInMe]

There is no rights issue here.

Its about special privileges.

Its about promoting a sexual perversion so homosexuals can have more sex partners.

 

[Percepi]

There is no rights issue here.

Its about special privileges.

Its about promoting a sexual perversion so homosexuals can have more sex partners.

Yes, it is a "rights" issue. You're suggesting two grown adults shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions.

Its about special privileges.

Choosing who to have sex with isn't a privilege - it's a right.

You need to understand, we're talking about government, not Christianity. If two non-Christian adults don't want to abide by Christian rules, they shouldn't be forced to. They should, however, be forced to abide by government laws. What we base government laws on are personal property rights reflecting a non-coercive policy (loosely speaking).

Its about promoting a sexual perversion so homosexuals can have more sex partners.

Keep in mind, the ONLY difference between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts is gender. If you say homosexuality promotes sexual perversion, the same argument can be said for promoting heterosexuality. And guess what, if more people choose to come out of the closet, or choose to be gay (if they can choose), that's THEIR choice. You can stand there and tell them it's wrong. You can preach the word of God to them. But the moment you tell them, "You don't have a choice, follow my master's rules", you step out of bounds.

Do you know what else promotes sexual perversion? Freedom of speech. Should we get rid of that as well? And should we ban pre-marital sex? Should we make it illegal to be anything but non-Christian?

Here's what I don't get. If it's a sin to partake in homosexual sex, therefore it should be illegal - then should it also be illegal to be an atheist, Hindu, or Jew, since those are all sins as well? Should it also be illegal not to attend church on Sundays, or to have pre-marital sex? Should it be illegal to get divorced unless a spouse cheats? Should all of these things be illegal? Or should all of these actions, which do not infringe on the well-being of others, be choices?

Keep in mind, "legal" does not necessarily mean "good".

I don't know about you, but I live in America. Perhaps it's in this great American culture in which I support freedom so viciously.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I have to agree with you that neo-conservatives (not paleoconservatives) and modern liberals/progressives (not classical liberals) LOVE big government.

However, you're making a false assertion in stating that two homosexuals being together doesn't affect my life in any way, shape, or form because it certainly does too.

If I own a bakery in Colorado and two homosexuals (being together) come in and order me to bake a cake for their "wedding" and I refuse to maintain my free moral conscience in line with my religious convictions toward a normative morality (something the founders of this nation intended to protect), then I face imprisonment with the stigma of being a felon for the rest of my life AND myself and my family life are subjected to life long abject poverty as the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines levied by the state do not wash in bankruptcy court.

Those two homosexual have just destroyed my family's life, by being together.

It is perfectly legal in some states right now in the U.S. for them to FORCE me to partake in their acts and if I refuse then infringe on my human rights and religious rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court may overturn these unconstitutional laws or they may not. Time will tell. But that doesn't save me and my family right now in the U.S. from two homosexuals who decide to be together.

And that doesn't sound like non-coercion to me friend but rather blatant tyranny.

And as for your ignorance regarding the basis for the rule of law, we're about to have a deep discussion on that topic refuting your entire position. Be sure you want to go there before you pull the trigger because I WILL take you there.

Conservatives LOVE big government, as long as it doesn't intrude too heavily in the marketplace. Conservatives have no problem with big government when it comes to policing social politics. The thing is, two homosexuals being together doesn't effect your life in any way, shape, or form. There's this thing called the non-coercion principle. We can't have the government outlawing homosexuality. Is homosexuality a sin? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be the government that FORCES people not to partake in such acts - it should be the choice of the individuals. If people want to sin, let them, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Abortion is different, because it effects the life of a fetus who doesn't have a say. So there is an argument to make abortions illegal.



You can not make laws based on Scripture. It's unconstitutional per the First Amendment.

I believe churches have the right to refuse service to homosexuals as well as practice freedom of speech. However, it's wrong for the government to outlaw homosexuality, since homosexuality happens between two consenting persons. Again, homosexuality may be a sin - but the government can't force people not to sin, it can only force people not to infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Percepi]

If I own a bakery in Colorado and two homosexuals (being together) come in and order me to bake a cake for their "wedding" and I refuse to maintain my free moral conscience in line with my religious convictions toward a normative morality (something the founders of this nation intended to protect), then I face imprisonment with the stigma of being a felon for the rest of my life AND myself and my family life are subjected to life long abject poverty as the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines levied by the state do not wash in bankruptcy court.

Those two homosexual have just destroyed my family's life, by being together.

I'll agree that this is wrong, we should be allowed to serve whomever we want. Just because we have one flawed law doesn't mean we should prohibit the rights of other persons. Instead, we should change the existing flawed law to ensure everyone has rights.

And that doesn't sound like non-coercion to me friend but rather blatant tyranny.

And as for your ignorance regarding the basis for the rule of law, we're about to have a deep discussion on that topic refuting your entire position.

I'm well aware of the laws. I am speaking from an idea society - in which people are allowed to deny service to gays. Read my posts on page 1. It is wrong to fix corruption through means of more corruption. Just because it's wrong to force businesses to serve everyone who walks into their doors, it's even more wrong to try and prohibit the rights of others instead of trying to repeal the flawed laws.

If someone is dating your ex-girlfriend, and you refuse to serve them and you're imprisoned, should we outlaw the act of dating other people's ex girlfriends?

Be sure you want to go there before you pull the trigger because I WILL take you there.

Let us throw down, friend.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No one is discriminating against any person. Every Christian business owner facing ruin at the hands of homosexuals right now in this country have stated that they will happily sell ALL of their goods and services to ANYONE for any moral purpose whatsoever.

This is about forcing Christians to facilitate activities that are historically normatively immoral. An activity is not a person.

We are FINE with anti-discrimination laws against people as long as our free moral consciences and religious convictions toward morality are legally respected.

Honestly, you and I are aligning on this issue. We both agree that people (e.g. persons) should not be discriminated against and people's right to a free moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality should be protected.

Furthermore, obviously this is a free marketplace which can handle the plurality simply because plenty of non-religious businesses will happily service all activities of anyone as long as it's legal to do so and the LGBT community themselves are free to service each other as well (no pun intended).

So to answer your question about the ex-girlfriend: NO. If you own a business, you should NOT refuse to serve your ex-girlfriend because she is a person. However, if she is engaging in an immoral activity that violates your free moral conscience and religious convictions toward morality: then you may refuse to facilitate that activity.

An example would be if you own a knife shop and she wants to buy a knife to murder you with. That would be a clear indication of an immoral activity that violates your free moral conscience and religious conviction against murder... lol. You should not HAVE to sell her the knife.

This is an issue that America needs to correct lest we become a deeply divided nation set against each other with liberals attempting to use the government as a weapon of mass destruction against their fellow citizens to severely persecute them and their families.

That's where we're drifting toward right now and it's VERY bad, anti-American, definitely something our founders sought to prevent from happening, and definitely going to paint liberals as morally blighted people if it continues causing them to lose a great deal of the political capital they've been able to accumulate since the 1960s.

I'll agree that this is wrong, we should be allowed to serve whomever we want. Just because we have one flawed law doesn't mean we should prohibit the rights of other persons. Instead, we should change the existing flawed law to ensure everyone has rights.



I'm well aware of the laws. I am speaking from an idea society - in which people are allowed to deny service to gays. Read my posts on page 1. It is wrong to fix corruption through means of more corruption. Just because it's wrong to force businesses to serve everyone who walks into their doors, it's even more wrong to try and prohibit the rights of others instead of trying to repeal the flawed laws.

If someone is dating your ex-girlfriend, and you refuse to serve them and you're imprisoned, should we outlaw the act of dating other people's ex girlfriends?



Let us throw down, friend.

 

[sc81]

if young people leave churches because they don't like being taught the word of God then that is simply sorting the wheat from the chaff. What you call anti-gay I call the truth of God.

Do you propose churches not teach anything offensive just to keep pew seats filled, that is a very dangerous theology and God will certainly hold preachers who do that responsible.