"LGBT RIGHTS"

[Percepi]

But you can use the gov't to force your views on us?

If you couldn't tell, I don't trust the government. I believe the government should be used to enforce the non-coercion principle and maximize each individual's freedoms as much as possible. (I'm really simplifying here, but that's what I believe in a nutshell). I feel there is very little the government should be responsible for. I am a Classical Liberal (not to be confused with today's liberals), or a libertarian.

So, essentially, no. I don't think I should be able to force my views onto you unless what I propose is meant to protect a person's freedoms or property.

I am aware that some people do infringe on Christian's rights. I'm also aware that the government does this from time to time as well. I do not endorse either of these actions.

 

[Kerry]

Evolution has to do with how genes are passed from one generation to the next resulting in speciation.



This is quite presumptuous. But even if it were true, it doesn't prove your claim that it's because we stopped praising God.



False dichotomy. It's because people have become paranoid due to terrorist attacks and the new wave of crimes resulting from new technology. The government is taking advantage of people's fears. This isn't anything new.



Who said thou shalt not kill, the theory of gravity? Therefore gravity is wrong.



Tell kids that God is real and that he favors those who kill, steal, and rob.



I mean, if you tell them that's what God wants, they'll do it.



It sure is a good thing almost all atheists don't think like this.



That's perfectly fine. You can let gays get married without supporting gay marriage.

I find religious to be pointless and often counter productive. I do not approve of Christianity, but I perfectly accept people's right to practice Christianity. You don't have to ban everything you disagree with.



Then don't vote. Because if you vote "No" to allowing gays to wed, then you're forcing your religion on other people whether you want to admit it or not. It also means you're letting the government represent your religious views - and as I said before, that's dangerous for everyone as well as the religion itself!



I agree with this. If churches don't want to wed gays, they shouldn't have to. If businesses don't want to serve gays, they shouldn't have to. If you don't want to hire gays, you shouldn't have to. But expect the same rules to apply to Christians and/or those who don't support gay rights. If people don't want to serve or hire those who oppose homosexuality, they should have that right.

I am in total agreement with you on this one. However...



Them getting married has nothing to do with you. It's none of your business. You don't have to wed them, you don't have to attend the wedding. You don't have to support the wedding. You just have to deal with the fact that other people aren't living how you think they should.



Fine, but let people choose whether or not they want to abide by God's laws. Don't force them to. If a person doesn't want to worship God, you should allow them that right.

Okay percipty you are quoting things that I did not say and I can prove it, why would put hings I did not say in your reply to me. this shows your character and the lying character of all atheist. You are not worth talking to other than the fact that Jesus died for you and I forgive you for lying on me.

 

[Kerry]

Cycel would disapprove of your actions. I will not report you because I love you.

 

[Human]

As soon as a child finds out how unnatural those arrangements are to the other kids at school, letting it out that he has two daddies and the kid has the second of two bedrooms, their own natural fears about it all come to the surface. Hollywood has tried hard to normalize those relationships, showing happy children accepting perversion. That isn't real life.

Heterosexual marriage has never been a "tradition". Look it up in any dictionary. Traditions are cultural beliefs passed down by communications, oral and/or written. None of us would be here it that's true. It is called "life", two parents combining genes to produce offspring, babies. You won't find two male wolves doing what some confused men do.

Heterosexual monogomous marriage with a single pair of humans is not normal on the chronological line of history. That practice is fairly new, actually, after polygamous patriarchal marriages (with concubines of course), walking marriages, tribal interbreeding, and before that casual sex in a communistic social structure where children are raised by the group.

It has become a tradition; it wasn't always one.

 

[Human]

So school shootings ar on the up rise because we have more schools. that makes since, guess evolution is weeding out the weak so the strong survive. Good thinking.

Your cake burned cause you left in the oven to long. And your cake is burning now cause you know in heart that I am right. I can' t walk the streets of Atlanta at night because there are more people? I have to get frisked before boarding a plane because of population increase? Think before you speak, this is propaganda shoved in your throat. Cops shootimng and killing teen agers because there are more teenagers now than the baby boomers, think again. Percipity think again. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ while you can.

You obviously can't understand what Percepi is saying. Let's say 50 years ago there are 50 people on your street. 5 out of 50 commit a crime each year. Nowadays let's say the population has gone up to 200 on your street, but only 3 out of 50 commit crime. Nowadays you'd see 12 crimes a year on your street, which is obviously more than the 5 fifty years ago, even though people are less likely to commit crime.

People are less likely to commit crimes, but because of the increase in population, more instances of crime happen. See how that works?

 

[Percepi]

this shows your character and the lying character of all atheist.

First of all, I believe almost all people lie, the severity of those lies varying from person to person. But the fact you believe atheists are defined by the characteristic of lying is just plain bigoted.

Second, you asked why we don't teach children, "God doesn't exist, so go ahead and kill and steal." My response to you is that we can just as easily teach that God is real and that stealing and killing is okay. You're trying to paint this picture that if you're an atheist, you should teach children that murder and theft is okay - so I did the opposite to highlight how easy it is to misrepresent any position.

I know you have good intentions, but you're so caught up in trying to prove everything I say wrong that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying and you're not putting any thought into anything I've said. For example, you mentioned many issues that occur and I said that there are other reasons why crimes are happening or other issues are occurring. This would be a great opportunity to figure out some of those other reasons.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Evolution has to do with how genes are passed from one generation to the next resulting in speciation.



This is quite presumptuous. But even if it were true, it doesn't prove your claim that it's because we stopped praising God.



False dichotomy. It's because people have become paranoid due to terrorist attacks and the new wave of crimes resulting from new technology. The government is taking advantage of people's fears. This isn't anything new.



Who said thou shalt not kill, the theory of gravity? Therefore gravity is wrong.



Tell kids that God is real and that he favors those who kill, steal, and rob.



I mean, if you tell them that's what God wants, they'll do it.



It sure is a good thing almost all atheists don't think like this.



That's perfectly fine. You can let gays get married without supporting gay marriage.

I find religious to be pointless and often counter productive. I do not approve of Christianity, but I perfectly accept people's right to practice Christianity. You don't have to ban everything you disagree with.



Then don't vote. Because if you vote "No" to allowing gays to wed, then you're forcing your religion on other people whether you want to admit it or not. It also means you're letting the government represent your religious views - and as I said before, that's dangerous for everyone as well as the religion itself!



I agree with this. If churches don't want to wed gays, they shouldn't have to. If businesses don't want to serve gays, they shouldn't have to. If you don't want to hire gays, you shouldn't have to. But expect the same rules to apply to Christians and/or those who don't support gay rights. If people don't want to serve or hire those who oppose homosexuality, they should have that right.

I am in total agreement with you on this one. However...



Them getting married has nothing to do with you. It's none of your business. You don't have to wed them, you don't have to attend the wedding. You don't have to support the wedding. You just have to deal with the fact that other people aren't living how you think they should.



Fine, but let people choose whether or not they want to abide by God's laws. Don't force them to. If a person doesn't want to worship God, you should allow them that right.

Here then starts the big issue that I can see already taking place, which is why this is a slippery slope;

I can already seeing them going to a church to have a Christian pastor wed them, but he turns them away. So then they start a big movement and start crying discrimination. I can see the law siding with them on this as our country has tried to weed out discrimination practices. They have already done it to bakery shops and other places that were Christian ran that refused service to them. The right to be a Christian in this country has been slowly taken away.
Did you know that in some places in America people can not even stand outside on a street corner and read the bible aloud for people to hear. One can actually get arrested for doing that. Where is the freedom of religion and speech in that ???

 

[Human]

Which is what I said all along.
I do not have to agree with their lifestyle, nor do I have to vote to make it legal for them to get married.
I can vote against all I want, for that is my Christian moral to uphold to not agree with legalizing sin and it is also my American freedom to vote however I wish.
For a Christian to vote yes on legalizing same sex marriage is by biblical standards taking part in that sin, and supporting it. Paul warns Timothy to not do that, or it will make him impure again by sin by taking part in theirs.

If they get their right to do this, they get it. I can not stop them, but I can continue to not support their sin and still be nice and friendly to them when I am around them. We are not to show hatred toward them, as we are called to love all people. But once again like I said, being king and showing love to them does not mean you have to support their lifestyle.

It is bigoted to disallow someone the same rights as you. If you would vote against gay marriage because you oppose it, then you'd have to vote to make homosexuality itself illegal, and to criminalize it, and to punish offenders, and to create means to inveestiage and prove accusations of homosexuality, and disallow gay people to kiss in public, hold hands, or have relationships. Where do you draw the line?? And how is it any different than someone voting to take away your rights?

 

[Percepi]

Here then starts the big issue that I can see already taking place, which is why this is a slippery slope;

I can already seeing them going to a church to have a Christian pastor wed them, but he turns them away. So then they start a big movement and start crying discrimination. I can see the law siding with them on this as our country has tried to weed out discrimination practices. They have already done it to bakery shops and other places that were Christian ran that refused service to them. The right to be a Christian in this country has been slowly taken away.
Did you know that in some places in America people can not even stand outside on a street corner and read the bible aloud for people to hear. One can actually get arrested for doing that. Where is the freedom of religion and speech in that ???

The fear of losing your rights is not an excuse to take away another person's rights.

I'm aware of the bakery incident and I completely agree that such laws are wrong. I would stand with you to support repealing such laws as long as you understand that discrimination against Christians would also be allowed (discrimination on a private level - not a government one). This means the government can't discriminate against hiring or serving Christians, but private businesses can. Of course, businesses can discriminate against atheists, homosexuals, etc.

Did you know that in some places in America people can not even stand outside on a street corner and read the bible aloud for people to hear. One can actually get arrested for doing that. Where is the freedom of religion and speech in that ?

I have not heard of this happening. I would be very interested if you could provide sources since this is something that would genuinely anger me.

 

[kennethcadwell]

The fear of losing your rights is not an excuse to take away another person's rights.

I'm aware of the bakery incident and I completely agree that such laws are wrong. I would stand with you to support repealing such laws as long as you understand that discrimination against Christians would also be allowed (discrimination on a private level - not a government one). This means the government can't discriminate against hiring or serving Christians, but private businesses can. Of course, businesses can discriminate against atheists, homosexuals, etc.



I have not heard of this happening. I would be very interested if you could provide sources since this is something that would genuinely anger me.

I will have to look those up for you, because I have herd of this happening I know for sure a couple of times in Texas that I heard this happen. But I know I have seen many others. I am going to go for tonight cause it is late here in Missouri, but I will never be in favor of passing a law if it infringes my rights on how I want to live.
Our government is in a bad habit of doing that, slowly taking away rights.

 

[Human]

Here then starts the big issue that I can see already taking place, which is why this is a slippery slope;

I can already seeing them going to a church to have a Christian pastor wed them, but he turns them away. So then they start a big movement and start crying discrimination. I can see the law siding with them on this as our country has tried to weed out discrimination practices. They have already done it to bakery shops and other places that were Christian ran that refused service to them. The right to be a Christian in this country has been slowly taken away.
Did you know that in some places in America people can not even stand outside on a street corner and read the bible aloud for people to hear. One can actually get arrested for doing that. Where is the freedom of religion and speech in that ???

Religious freedom is separate from business legislation. It's a pastor's legal right, as a person running a religious institution furthering a particular message, to refuse marriage to gay people, since Christian marriage (and that little word is important) is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Secular marriage is different.

As far as a confection business refusing service -- if the people bake the cakes themselves, then they have a right not to have their creative work associated with any practices or messages they feel detrimental or contrary to their character or beliefs (form of property law), but if a gay person walks into a normal supermarket (at least here in the UK) they cannot be refused service of generic goods on the basis of their sexual orientation.

 

[Percepi]

I will have to look those up for you, because I have herd of this happening I know for sure a couple of times in Texas that I heard this happen. But I know I have seen many others. I am going to go for tonight cause it is late here in Missouri, but I will never be in favor of passing a law if it infringes my rights on how I want to live.
Our government is in a bad habit of doing that, slowly taking away rights.

As much as we may disagree with each other on some topics, I believe we stumbled onto something we may both strongly agree on.

 

[Percepi]

Religious freedom is separate from business legislation. It's a pastor's legal right, as a person running a religious institution furthering a particular message, to refuse marriage to gay people, since Christian marriage (and that little word is important) is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Secular marriage is different.

As far as a confection business refusing service -- if the people bake the cakes themselves, then they have a right not to have their creative work associated with any practices they feel detrimental to their character (form of property law), but if a gay person walks into a normal supermarket (at least here in the UK) they cannot be refused service of generic goods (this doesn't apply to creative goods or purpose built goods) on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I can't remember the exact details about the bakery story over here. Either the baker didn't want to serve gays or he was being forced to write on top of the cake a congratulations to a gay couple (I think the latter - but not sure). Oddly enough, another baker got in trouble because he didn't want to serve members of the KKK (same as the above, I think they wanted him to write something on the cake but I can't remember).

If people want to be jerks with their businesses, I think we should just let them. Abercrombie is an example of such a company, one that unfortunately has had a huge impact on our nation and has caused so much bullying in our nation. I have less respect for the CEO of that company than I do Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. (Edited out most of my anger towards the scumbag CEO).

 

[Human]

I can't remember the exact details about the bakery story over here. Either the baker didn't want to serve gays or he was being forced to write on top of the cake a congratulations to a gay couple (I think the latter - but not sure). Oddly enough, another baker got in trouble because he didn't want to serve members of the KKK (same as the above, I think they wanted him to write something on the cake but I can't remember).

If people want to be jerks with their businesses, I think we should just let them. Abercrombie is an example of such a company, one that unfortunately has had a huge impact on our nation and has caused so much bullying in our nation. I can't wait until the CEO of that company dies (he's one of the few scumbags whom I'd ever say such a thing about - he's WORSE than Fred Phelps).

IT's a bit wooly but how it works here is basically, if I walk into a shop and ask for a cake from dear old Malcolm's Home Bakery that says ''I like touching children'' then the baker has a right to refuse because he does not want his creative work associated with that message, and the same applies to ''Gay Rights, Baby'', if that was what I wanted printed, however, if old Malcolm has eight cakes already baked that say ''Happy Birthday'' and he is willing to sell one to the nice straight couple in front of me in the queue (which, since they are already baked it is only logical to assume he is) yet he won't sell me one because me and my boyfriend Jemimah McLovin' are holding hands, then I could take him to court and probably win a discrimination case.

 

[kaylagrl]

If you couldn't tell, I don't trust the government. I believe the government should be used to enforce the non-coercion principle and maximize each individual's freedoms as much as possible. (I'm really simplifying here, but that's what I believe in a nutshell). I feel there is very little the government should be responsible for. I am a Classical Liberal (not to be confused with today's liberals), or a libertarian.

So, essentially, no. I don't think I should be able to force my views onto you unless what I propose is meant to protect a person's freedoms or property.

I am aware that some people do infringe on Christian's rights. I'm also aware that the government does this from time to time as well. I do not endorse either of these actions.

Hummm classical liberal? New one to me.Have to check that out.I'm not sure how I feel about the gov't myself.I vote according to my beliefs but I dont know how much good that does. Unfortunately Westboro has made Christians look like horrible, horrible people. Full of hatred and just evil. I dont feel that way.I dont agree with being gay but I dont go out bashing people,or using certain names or preaching at people.If you ask me I will tell you,otherwise I keep my mouth shut.There are countries that have made being gay illegal because it has decreased their population so much.But disagreeing with someone doesnt mean I hate them.

 

[PennEd]

I believe as an American that's your right. What about a wedding cake for an atheist, a Hindu, a Muslim or a Jew? Would you bake any of those?



I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry because then they can have the same legal rights as straight married couples and because I don't see how someone being homosexual and getting married infringes upon the rights of anybody else. I don't see how being a gay married couple is harmful to anybody else. Polygamy I've never really thought about, but I suppose if a man wanted to have eight wives or a woman wanted to have six husbands, I can see how that might create a situation where young men can't find wives, or social and domestic issues in regards to mate selection. As for siblings; children born from incestuous relationships are biologically more likely to be sick or disabled than to be fully healthy, and that, for me, is unethical. In regards to peadophilia and marriage; a child can't give consent, and so such marriage should be illegal.

I don't want to be the arbiter of morality anymore than you do. After all, you assert your personal religious views (which can't be verifiably tested or quantified in any tangible way) to be the single real morality that all the world should abide by! lol. I, on the other hand, recognize the right of the individual to live by the lifestyle and the moral code they choose, so long as it does not infringe on another human's right to do likewise, which is in fact the making os a self-regulating society where no person's human rights are infringed. I believe gay people should have the right to marry if they so wish, to have sex if they so wish, just like you should have the right to disagree with it.



Again, incestuous relationships are biologically harmful. Incetuous reltionships are also an extreme rarity, and some recent scientific studies show that humans are programmed to find mates outside familial ties, to expand the gene pool. Even if incet were made legal, the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't engage in it.

If a Muslim or Atheist wanted a homosexual themed cake then i would refuse them.

How is 2 brothers marrying any more "biologically harmful" than 2 unrelated men committing unspeakable acts with each other spreading all manner of horrible diseases?

What is YOUR age of consent since it has varied drastically throughout history?

If you want ANY restrictions on marriage then your are in fact putting forward YOUR morality on the issue. Why is YOUR morality more valid than Scriptures?

 

[Percepi]

There are countries that have made being gay illegal because it has decreased their population so much.

Can you link a source backing this claim up please? Because I honestly find this incredibly hard to believe. Most people are straight. The number of gays within the human population is just not enough to lead to a decline.

After looking at American statistics, about 96% of the population identify as straight. 86% of adults over 45 have had children, leaving 14% who have not had children.

As for the population growth rate, it is lowering. The large growth rate prior to this happened as technology began to increase and more children survived into adulthood. Large families were common since children were often used to help families farm. Today, families feel less pressure to have more than one or two children, leading to a slower population growth. This is the result of technology and social norms. This is a pattern you'll notice around the world.

Now, some countries are having issues with decreasing populations. But there are numerous factors. Homosexuality is so uncommon that it's effect on the human population is trivial.

 

[Percepi]

If a Muslim or Atheist wanted a homosexual themed cake then i would refuse them.

How is 2 brothers marrying any more "biologically harmful" than 2 unrelated men committing unspeakable acts with each other spreading all manner of horrible diseases?

What is YOUR age of consent since it has varied drastically throughout history?

If you want ANY restrictions on marriage then your are in fact putting forward YOUR morality on the issue. Why is YOUR morality more valid than Scriptures?

First of all, we have the 1st Amendment.

Second, God's morality is a choice. That's the entire premise behind sin. God allows us the option to either obey him or to sin, dictating who should and shouldn't be punished after death. You're trying to force God's morality when God's morality is supposed to be a choice.

Of course, as I said before, religious freedom makes your argument invalid (unless you admit you don't support religious freedom).

 

[PennEd]

First of all, we have the 1st Amendment.

Second, God's morality is a choice. That's the entire premise behind sin. God allows us the option to either obey him or to sin, dictating who should and shouldn't be punished after death. You're trying to force God's morality when God's morality is supposed to be a choice.

Of course, as I said before, religious freedom makes your argument invalid (unless you admit you don't support religious freedom).

This is a complete avoidance of the question. If you believe homosexuals or pedophiles or polygamists should be allowed to marry then YOUR morality wins out. If you believe homosexuals can, but the other two can't then AGAIN YOUR morality wins out! So my question is why should YOUR morality rule over the morality of Scripture, Nature, and all of human history?

 

[Percepi]

This is a complete avoidance of the question. If you believe homosexuals or pedophiles or polygamists should be allowed to marry then YOUR morality wins out. If you believe homosexuals can, but the other two can't then AGAIN YOUR morality wins out! So my question is why should YOUR morality rule over the morality of Scripture, Nature, and all of human history?

Scripture: I'm not a Christian. It's literally that simple. We live in a nation of religious freedom, not the Islamic State.
Nature: We see animals perform gay activities in nature. Look it up.
Human History: Different cultures have had different reactions to homosexuality throughout history. Regardless, it doesn't really matter what humans used to do since many ancient human civilizations used to own slaves.

You keep asking why it's okay for me to force my morality but it's not okay for you to force your morality. Keep in mind, your argument can literally be used to support murder and rape as well. "Why is it okay for you to force your morality but you won't allow me to force rape and murder into your society?"

If you believe homosexuals or pedophiles or polygamists should be allowed to marry then YOUR morality wins out.

Polygamists are wrongfully discriminated against as well. Honestly, the government shouldn't be involved with marriage what-so-ever if you ask me.

Pedophilia is wrong because children aren't trusted to make healthy life decisions. Notice how the reasoning for this one is based off of practical outcome and not "God said it". That's what separates your morality and mine.

If you have any practical reasons to ban homosexuality that isn't related to your religion, then you can argue that we shouldn't allow it. But if you say those reasons are based solely off your religion, then you're an anti-freedom Christian equivalent of ISIS.

Again, if you need to use the government to keep Christianity alive, then Christianity is most definitely a false religion since it can't stand on its own.