Anti- Christian Crusade.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Again, freedom to practice one's religion is not a free pass to break the law. That's just a fact.

Again, because you don't get it. The law cannot trump a Right. The law cannot force a person to act against their Rights.

Rights are God-given. Laws are man-made.

Furthermore, ye who set herself up as god and judge: name the law that the Christian baker broke; quote me section and line.

The Supreme Court, as corrupt as it is with all the liberals on it, including John Roberts, does not make law.

Just because they rule outside of their authority on the Constitution as they did with marriage, does not make homo-union the law of the land. The States have to make law in their congresses.

So the exercise of their religion did not break any established law - period.

I will now let you defend the profane.

 

[Barrd]

I do not and will not ever agree that the right to practice any sexual perversion, including but not limited to homosexuality, is "an inherent right that the government cannot deny".

 

[StanJ]

I do not and will not ever agree that the right to practice any sexual perversion, including but not limited to homosexuality, is "an inherent right that the government cannot deny".

Then you FAIL to understand the democratic process you live under and supposedly by? Again I draw your attention to 1 Cor 5:9-13

 

[Barrd]

Christians are supposed to be "the light of the world".
That means that we are supposed to shine the light of Christ upon the darkness of sin.
That is what we do when we oppose such things as "gay marriage".

We are supposed to be "the salt of the earth".
That means that we are supposed to preserve what is good from the corruption of the world.
Corruption such as sexual perversion...

 

[Barrd]

Then you FAIL to understand the democratic process you live under and supposedly by? Again I draw your attention to 1 Cor 5:9-13

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision, nor does it tell me why I should not stand against homosexuality?

 

[River Jordan]

Again, because you don't get it. The law cannot trump a Right. The law cannot force a person to act against their Rights.

Rights are God-given. Laws are man-made.

Sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong on this. Just as a Christian bakery owner cannot refuse to sell to interracial couples because his religion dictates that the races remain separate, a Christian bakery owner cannot refuse to sell to same sex couples because his religion dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman. In both cases, the law forces the bakers to act against their religion.

name the law that the Christian baker broke; quote me section and line.

Oregon law, 659A.403

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

The Supreme Court, as corrupt as it is with all the liberals on it, including John Roberts, does not make law.

Just because they rule outside of their authority on the Constitution as they did with marriage, does not make homo-union the law of the land. The States have to make law in their congresses.

I'm becoming increasingly amazed at how many conservatives refer to the Constitution, yet are apparently completely ignorant of it.

As the Constitution states, it is the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution also says that it is the role of the Supreme Court to rule on constitutional issues, as well as issues between the states. On this issue, there had been several cases working their way through the federal court system. You had same sex couples suing states that had anti-gay marriage laws, arguing that those laws violated their constitutional rights. There were also same sex couples that had gotten legally married in one state, but moved to another state that refused to legally recognize their marriage. So you had constitutional issues, as well as conflict between the states, both of which the Constitution says is within the purview of the Supreme Court (as you've seen by the link above).

And as we all know, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning same sex marriage were violations of the Constitutional rights of same sex couples, specifically their rights to equal protection under the law and due process. On that basis, they ruled that states cannot refuse to recognize same sex marriages.

So the exercise of their religion did not break any established law - period.

As you can see, you're simply wrong.

 

[River Jordan]

I do not and will not ever agree that the right to practice any sexual perversion, including but not limited to homosexuality, is "an inherent right that the government cannot deny".

Who do you think defines what is and isn't "sexual perversion"?

Christians are supposed to be "the light of the world".
That means that we are supposed to shine the light of Christ upon the darkness of sin.

I agree, and no where are we told to be mean and nasty about it.

 

[Barrd]

Who do you think defines what is and isn't "sexual perversion"?

Why, God, of course, River!
It was God Who created gender in the first place, wasn't it?

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

And Jesus is quite clear about His intentions:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I agree, and no where are we told to be mean and nasty about it.

No, my dear sister, we are not told to be mean and nasty about it.
But we are told not to "keep company" with fornicators, but rather to put them away from among us:

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.


and we are told that homosexuals will not see Heaven:

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh, and did you notice, Sis? Thieves, and the covetous and extortioners are included in the list of those we are not to associate with. That would include those greedy evangelists you talked about earlier. It seems that they are lumped right in there with those wicked gay folks.
Feel better now?

 

[River Jordan]

Why, God, of course, River!

Who's God? Yours? Mormon's? Muslim's? Wiccan's?

But we are told not to "keep company" with fornicators, but rather to put them away from among us:

Yet we never hear of Christian businesses refusing to serve fornicators, do we?

Oh, and did you notice, Sis? Thieves, and the covetous and extortioners are included in the list of those we are not to associate with. That would include those greedy evangelists you talked about earlier. It seems that they are lumped right in there with those wicked gay folks.
Feel better now?

You're making my point for me. Christian business owners don't seem to have any problem selling things to those folks, but for some reason they think making it illegal for them to refuse to do business with gays is persecution. Like I keep saying, you'd think being gay was some sort of extra special sin, worse than any other.

 

[Barrd]

Who's God? Yours? Mormon's? Muslim's? Wiccan's?

I'm surprised and a bit shocked that you would ask me this.
There is only ONE God, River.
Or didn't you know this?

Yet we never hear of Christian businesses refusing to serve fornicators, do we?

As far as I know, nobody has ever gone into a Christian business and asked for service for a fornication party.
You'll let me know if you ever hear of such a thing, please?
I know that if I were asked to cater an orgy (supposing that I were in that business), I would refuse.
Or if I were a printer who was asked to do business cards for a prostitute...
I can't really think of any other examples off hand, but you get the general idea, I hope?

You're making my point for me. Christian business owners don't seem to have any problem selling things to those folks, but for some reason they think making it illegal for them to refuse to do business with gays is persecution. Like I keep saying, you'd think being gay was some sort of extra special sin, worse than any other.

As a general rule, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners don't generally announce themselves as such.
Should a Christian artist sculpt a statue of the goddess for a Wiccan?
Should a Christian Bed and Breakfast knowingly be the setting for adultery?

Homosexuality is a big deal right now. I wish it weren't, but it wasn't my idea for them to push for the right to marry.
Ironically, when I first heard about this, several years ago, my first reaction was "So what? They are already living together, paying bills together, and even raising kids together. Might as well give them the tax break. Marriage doesn't mean anything any more anyhow, since the no-fault divorce has become legal."

God changed my mind...

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong on this. Just as a Christian bakery owner cannot refuse to sell to interracial couples because his religion dictates that the races remain separate, a Christian bakery owner cannot refuse to sell to same sex couples because his religion dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman. I

Of course, you're just as wrong as the liberals you defend. That's the funny thing about liberals, they know so much that just isn't true.

My mother taught me that "Your Rights stop where someone else's Rights begin."

Now in that regard, I have a Right to be armed. You have a Right to your property. My Right to be armed does not trump your property Rights, and so if you decline, I may not enter your property while being armed. That is the law of the land too.

Just as in this case, which has nothing to do with eschatology, the Christian bakers, who you excoriate, did not refuse service. In fact, they had dealt with these homos before. They just refused to bake a cake which openly promoted something which made them do something that was against their religion. In such a case, as has been found elsewhere, their Right to exercise their religion, as with the Hobby Lobby case, trumps another's Rights - and there is no right to homo-marriage.

And if you read the Constitution, you would know about the separation of powers, and what these liberals on the Court decide does not make law. Of course, liberals don't know this.

 

[Barrd]

Of course, you're just as wrong as the liberals you defend. That's the funny thing about liberals, they know so much that just isn't true.

My mother taught me that "Your Rights stop where someone else's Rights begin."

Now in that regard, I have a Right to be armed. You have a Right to your property. My Right to be armed does not trump your property Rights, and so if you decline, I may not enter your property while being armed. That is the law of the land too.

Just as in this case, which has nothing to do with eschatology, the Christian bakers, who you excoriate, did not refuse service. In fact, they had dealt with these homos before. They just refused to bake a cake which openly promoted something which made them do something that was against their religion. In such a case, as has been found elsewhere, their Right to exercise their religion, as with the Hobby Lobby case, trumps another's Rights - and there is no right to homo-marriage.

And if you read the Constitution, you would know about the separation of powers, and what these liberals on the Court decide does not make law. Of course, liberals don't know this.

Thank you, Marcus.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm surprised and a bit shocked that you would ask me this.
There is only ONE God, River.
Or didn't you know this?

I think you're missing the point again. You said the government should not be recognizing people's right to "sexual perversion". That leads to an obvious question...what is and isn't "sexual perversion" and who decides? And your answer is "God of course".

But your'e not thinking of this from any perspective but your own. Look at it from the government's perspective. The government represents every citizen, not just those who belong to a certain religion. So if the government is going to set policy based on God, it has to decide "Who's God". Among the citizenry are Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, Wiccans, Jews, and quite a few people who don't believe in gods at all. So naturally all of those folks go to the government and say "Base your policies on my God" (except the atheists/agnostics who probably would say "I don't want government policies based on any gods"). And every one of those groups is just as sure as we are that their God is the only God (or that there are no gods).

Do you see the point? What you're basically saying is "Government policy should be based on my religion, and no one else's". Do you see the problem with that?

Or would you be content if Obama announced that he'd heard directly from God?

As far as I know, nobody has ever gone into a Christian business and asked for service for a fornication party.
You'll let me know if you ever hear of such a thing, please?
I know that if I were asked to cater an orgy (supposing that I were in that business), I would refuse.
Or if I were a printer who was asked to do business cards for a prostitute...
I can't really think of any other examples off hand, but you get the general idea, I hope?

But if Christian business owners are so adamant that they not sell anything that might be supportive of sin, why is homosexuality the only sin that they seem to be worried about? If a couple comes in for a wedding cake, do the Christian business owners ask them if they've had pre-marital sex? If they've been married before? What sort of sex they plan on having? After all, don't wanna be supportive of any sexual sins, right?

And with sins like greed and gluttony, are there any cases where a Christian caterer, baker, or florist refused to provide services to a wedding between obese people, or at an overtly opulent wedding? Those things should be just as obvious as a gay couple.

Again, this is why we're taking such a public beating over this. The hypocrisy is just so over the top.

Homosexuality is a big deal right now.

So are greed and gluttony.

 

[River Jordan]

Of course, you're just as wrong as the liberals you defend. That's the funny thing about liberals, they know so much that just isn't true.

*shrug* Why, because you say so? I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the side I'm arguing here has been consistently winning in court. So you can say "You're wrong" all you like, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Just as in this case, which has nothing to do with eschatology, the Christian bakers, who you excoriate, did not refuse service. In fact, they had dealt with these homos before. They just refused to bake a cake which openly promoted something which made them do something that was against their religion. In such a case, as has been found elsewhere, their Right to exercise their religion, as with the Hobby Lobby case, trumps another's Rights - and there is no right to homo-marriage.

And if you read the Constitution, you would know about the separation of powers, and what these liberals on the Court decide does not make law. Of course, liberals don't know this.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but that doesn't change reality. If you don't have anything more than your empty say-so, I'll just thank you for your input.

 

[Barrd]

I think you're missing the point again. You said the government should not be recognizing people's right to "sexual perversion". That leads to an obvious question...what is and isn't "sexual perversion" and who decides? And your answer is "God of course".

Well, I could have said "human society", since most human society does agree that homosexuality is a perversion.
I suppose that is because it is unnatural.
However, I am a Christian...therefore, my first concern is what God thinks about it.
And God thinks it is unnatural.
Coincidence? Uh....no.

But your'e not thinking of this from any perspective but your own. Look at it from the government's perspective. The government represents every citizen, not just those who belong to a certain religion. So if the government is going to set policy based on God, it has to decide "Who's God". Among the citizenry are Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, Wiccans, Jews, and quite a few people who don't believe in gods at all. So naturally all of those folks go to the government and say "Base your policies on my God" (except the atheists/agnostics who probably would say "I don't want government policies based on any gods"). And every one of those groups is just as sure as we are that their God is the only God (or that there are no gods).

Most of the religions you mentioned, with the possible exception of Wiccans and Satanists, also have injunctions against homosexuality. In fact, there are a good many atheists and agnostics who are also anti-gay, although there are a fair amount of them who are gay themselves, and that is why they left their religion in the first place.
Now, I have no real problem with Wicca, in fact, I kind of like their "'an ye harm none, do as ye will" philosophy. There are a few I know of who do realize the inherent harm in sodomy, not only to the person on the receiving end, but the danger to people around them as well.
However, I have to wonder....do you really want our government to set policy according to Satanism, or even atheism? I don't think that would be a really good idea....

Do you see the point? What you're basically saying is "Government policy should be based on my religion, and no one else's". Do you see the problem with that?

I do see your point.
On the other hand, promoting homosexuality is not a terribly good idea for other reasons than religion.
Sodomy, in particular, presents a very real danger, not only to the person "on the bottom", but to the people around them as well.
You do know what the actual function of the anus is, yes?
And you also know that human excrement is not exactly a healthy substance to play in, right?
Did you also know that we have an increasing problem with staph germs that have become resistant to antibiotics?
River, have you ever watched anyone die of staph infection? I have, and it is not a pretty sight.
All that is needed for you to become infected is for someone who has had sodomy with his gay lover and who has been a bit sloppy about cleaning himself up afterwards, to go into, say, a grocery store, and for you to come behind him and use the same cart he had been handling...
It really is that contagious.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&site=&source=hp&q=can+sodomy+spread+staph%3F&oq=can+sodomy+spread+staph%3F&gs_l=hp.12...223.6908.0.8883.10.10.0.0.0.0.801.1564.6-2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..10.0.0.IgKqlE0TETg

Any of those sites will give you more info.

Or would you be content if Obama announced that he'd heard directly from God?

It's a very good thing that I have one of those covers over my keyboard. I had a mouthful of orange juice when I got to this part... :lol:

But if Christian business owners are so adamant that they not sell anything that might be supportive of sin, why is homosexuality the only sin that they seem to be worried about? If a couple comes in for a wedding cake, do the Christian business owners ask them if they've had pre-marital sex? If they've been married before? What sort of sex they plan on having? After all, don't wanna be supportive of any sexual sins, right?

As a general rule, people don't come into the bakery and announce, "My divorce just became final, and I can finally marry the person I've been cheating on my ex with." Or "We've been having sex for months, and finally decided to get married." Or "We're planning on having deviant sex (whatever that is), and we'd like our wedding cake to reflect that." (Would the bride be in chains, and the groom holding a whip?)
Perhaps, if some couple did go into a Christian bakery and ask for such a cake, we'd have another case on our hands...

And with sins like greed and gluttony, are there any cases where a Christian caterer, baker, or florist refused to provide services to a wedding between obese people, or at an overtly opulent wedding? Those things should be just as obvious as a gay couple.

I honestly do not understand the rationale that says that it's okay for homosexuals to marry, but not chubby people.
And you would have hated my Dad...he gave me a princess wedding.

Again, this is why we're taking such a public beating over this. The hypocrisy is just so over the top.

Again, I don't see why you are so concerned with public opinion.
Jesus wasn't.

So are greed and gluttony.

So are a whole lot of other sins.
But most people aren't running around promoting those sins.
For some reason, homosexuality is being promoted, and Christians are rightly "up in arms" against it.

 

[Barrd]

River, do you honestly think that "consistently winning in court" proves that homosexuality is "right" and those who fight against it are "wrong"?

Would you agree that a woman who foolishly burned herself on her hot coffee deserved a huge settlement?

Or that a thief who injured himself during an attempt to break into someone's home through a skylight ought to win his lawsuit against the homeowner?

Would you agree that someone should be arrested and held without being read his Miranda rights or being given access to an attorney?

All of these things have happened. Does that make them "right"?

 

[River Jordan]

Well, I could have said "human society", since most human society does agree that homosexuality is a perversion.

Actually, if we were to go by majority opinion, we'd be where we are today. The majority of Americans don't think homosexuality should be illegal, and think gays should be allowed to marry. (SOURCE)

Most of the religions you mentioned, with the possible exception of Wiccans and Satanists, also have injunctions against homosexuality.

That's not the point. You were arguing that the government should not allow "sexual perversion" and that what is and isn't perverse would be based on God. Well, Mormons and Muslims believe God condones polygamy. Satanists believe....well, anything goes. The Amish believe anything other than the missionary position is perverse.

I guess a bigger question is, do you really want the government regulating what kind of sex consenting adults have? You want something like a vice department like they have in Saudi Arabia?

I do see your point.

Great! :)

On the other hand, promoting homosexuality is not a terribly good idea for other reasons than religion.
Sodomy, in particular, presents a very real danger, not only to the person "on the bottom", but to the people around them as well.

Sure, there are risks with all types of sex, and a host of other things (eating a high fat diet for example). And you do realize that heterosexuals engage in sodomy too, right? So again, do you want the government peering into our bedrooms and monitoring the type of sex we have?

It's a very good thing that I have one of those covers over my keyboard. I had a mouthful of orange juice when I got to this part... :lol:

I figured you'd like that.

As a general rule, people don't come into the bakery and announce, "My divorce just became final, and I can finally marry the person I've been cheating on my ex with." Or "We've been having sex for months, and finally decided to get married." Or "We're planning on having deviant sex (whatever that is), and we'd like our wedding cake to reflect that." (Would the bride be in chains, and the groom holding a whip?)

Why don't the Christian business owners ask? After all, they claim the most important thing is that they not do anything that's supportive of sin, right? Why take that risk?

I honestly do not understand the rationale that says that it's okay for homosexuals to marry, but not chubby people.
And you would have hated my Dad...he gave me a princess wedding.

Again, I think you're missing the point. If an obese couple comes in and requests a large cake, or a fully stocked buffet, if the Christian baker/caterer provides their services, aren't they knowingly supporting the sin of gluttony? If a wealthy couple comes in and requests everything for an outrageously opulent wedding, wouldn't the Christian business owner be knowingly supporting the sin of greed? Of course they would. Yet we never hear of any such cases, do we?

But for some reason, the line on "supporting sin" gets drawn at homosexuality. IOW, they'll take money from the gluttonous, greedy, fornicators, and all other sorts of sinners, but not gays. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, I don't know what else to say.

Again, I don't see why you are so concerned with public opinion.
Jesus wasn't.

As I said earlier, it directly affects our ability to spread the Gospel.

So are a whole lot of other sins.
But most people aren't running around promoting those sins.

You can't be serious. :blink: You don't think the love of money and gluttony are being promoted in the US? Shoot, they're being promoted within the Christian community!!!

River, do you honestly think that "consistently winning in court" proves that homosexuality is "right" and those who fight against it are "wrong"?

Marcus is bringing up legal questions and issues. All he's given me is "You're a liberal" and "You're wrong". He's not posted any sort of legal argument, so there's really nothing to discuss. I'm not interested in a flame war with him, or a childish "Yes it is", "No it isn't" back and forth.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

but the side I'm arguing here has been consistently winning in court.

So someone who judges other's heart attitudes usurping God's authority, and this is not the muslim moon god, or some pagan god, but God the Father, is now arguing for those who promote sin. They teach homosexuality in school now. That is morally wrong. Here is what Jesus said about people who lead children astray: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea." - Mk 9:42

The Supreme Court is wise? No. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight" - 1Co 3:19.

So you're winning in court. These are the times when apostasy increases. 2Ti 3:3-5 "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—"

Furthermore, what you are arguing for is against God's Law - and the people you support are anti-God. Romans 1:21-32

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four- footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

You, miss river jordan, might not cross over if you persist in befriending the world. "Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." - James 4:4

 

[Barrd]

Actually, if we were to go by majority opinion, we'd be where we are today. The majority of Americans don't think homosexuality should be illegal, and think gays should be allowed to marry. (SOURCE)

According to your source, this is a fairly recent development.
It doesn't seem to have spread to the little southern town I live in yet...so perhaps I was unaware of it.
To me, it is just one more evidence that America is moving away from God...
It has been well said that "if God doesn't do something about America fairly soon, He's going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
It was said in jest, of course, but....

That's not the point. You were arguing that the government should not allow "sexual perversion" and that what is and isn't perverse would be based on God. Well, Mormons and Muslims believe God condones polygamy. Satanists believe....well, anything goes. The Amish believe anything other than the missionary position is perverse.

Poygamy, whether legal or not, is already a fact in the United States. And, under that SCOTUS decision, whose to say it is not legal?
Is a man having more than one wife actually a "perversion" in the same sense as some old lady having sex with her dog is a perversion? As a woman and a wife and mother, I don't like the idea of sharing my husband, but is it a perversion?
As for the Amish, if anything other than the missionary position is perverse, I guess we can count them as being against homosexuality, which is the perversion under discussion. (Wasn't it a refusal to have sex missionary style that got Lilith kicked out of Eden? LOL)
On the other hand, as I said, most of those other religions do believe that homosexuality is a perversion. That is a fact that you cannot deny.

I guess a bigger question is, do you really want the government regulating what kind of sex consenting adults have? You want something like a vice department like they have in Saudi Arabia?

I don't think the government ought to be involved in anyone's sexual decisions at all....they certainly don't need to be legalizing sexual perversions, imo.

Great! :)

Even this old Conservative gets one right every now and then, eh?

Sure, there are risks with all types of sex, and a host of other things (eating a high fat diet for example). And you do realize that heterosexuals engage in sodomy too, right? So again, do you want the government peering into our bedrooms and monitoring the type of sex we have?

Once again, the main one harmed by eating the high fat diet is the glutton.
And yes, I realize that there are normal people who engage in sodomy....however, the greatest threat is from homosexual men.
Did you even look at any of those sites? (I looked at your source . Not looking at mine could be construed as rude )
Did you know that, at one time, sodomy was against the law in the US?

I figured you'd like that.

You do know how to make me smile, Sis.

Why don't the Christian business owners ask? After all, they claim the most important thing is that they not do anything that's supportive of sin, right? Why take that risk?

On the other hand, why would the gay couple volunteer that information?
Why not just order a cake for the "Jones-Smith" wedding, and not mention the gender of the bride or groom?
The baker would do the cake, and nobody would have to sue anybody....and the ACLU would have one less thing to keep them up at night...

Again, I think you're missing the point. If an obese couple comes in and requests a large cake, or a fully stocked buffet, if the Christian baker/caterer provides their services, aren't they knowingly supporting the sin of gluttony? If a wealthy couple comes in and requests everything for an outrageously opulent wedding, wouldn't the Christian business owner be knowingly supporting the sin of greed? Of course they would. Yet we never hear of any such cases, do we?

A wedding is, or ought to be, a once-in-a-lifetime affair.
For all the baker knows, the large cake or the well stocked buffet might be because the fat couple are expecting a large number of guests, and want to make sure that there is enough to go around.
And, like my own Dad, who dropped a small fortune on his little girl when I got married, some parents want their children's wedding day to be an event they will treasure all their lives. Is that a sin? If it is, then why did Jesus provide more wine for the wedding guests in Cana?
I think you are splitting hairs, here, dear one.
Neither of these cases has quite the same aura of perversion about it as a "gay wedding".

But for some reason, the line on "supporting sin" gets drawn at homosexuality. IOW, they'll take money from the gluttonous, greedy, fornicators, and all other sorts of sinners, but not gays. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, I don't know what else to say.

Okay....we just covered "gluttonous and greedy". I see no need to repeat here what I just posted above.
Fornicators....as far as I know, no one has ever gone into a bakery and asked for a cake for an orgy party. Now, when someone comes in to buy cookies or cupcakes, whether they are gay or fat or greedy or committing adultery has little to do with that particular purchase.
If the gay person asks for cookies for a gay party...
or the fat person tells the baker that he intends to eat all the cookies himself before bedtime...
or the greedy person tells the baker that he is going to resell his cookies at a considerable markup on the internet...
Then the baker might have grounds to object.
Now, it seems to me that I do recall reading that one of the bakeries involved had provided baked goods to the parties in question before. They had no problem serving them....they just refused to participate in sin.
If they had simply ordered a wedding cake, without specifying that it was for a gay wedding, would the baker have objected?

As I said earlier, it directly affects our ability to spread the Gospel.

And as I said earlier, those who have ears to hear will still hear God's Word.
And those who reject it on the grounds that Christians refuse to promote sin are not going to hear it in any case.

You can't be serious. :blink: You don't think the love of money and gluttony are being promoted in the US? Shoot, they're being promoted within the Christian community!!!

Your point is well taken.

Marcus is bringing up legal questions and issues. All he's given me is "You're a liberal" and "You're wrong". He's not posted any sort of legal argument, so there's really nothing to discuss. I'm not interested in a flame war with him, or a childish "Yes it is", "No it isn't" back and forth.

Which doesn't change the fact that winning in court doesn't necessarily mean that one is right.

No one says that you must play with Marcus if you don't like him...

 

[River Jordan]

According to your source, this is a fairly recent development.

Yes it is.

To me, it is just one more evidence that America is moving away from God...

Unfortunately, the Christian community's reaction to this is furthering that trend, rather than reversing or slowing it.

Poygamy, whether legal or not, is already a fact in the United States. And, under that SCOTUS decision, whose to say it is not legal?
Is a man having more than one wife actually a "perversion" in the same sense as some old lady having sex with her dog is a perversion? As a woman and a wife and mother, I don't like the idea of sharing my husband, but is it a perversion?
As for the Amish, if anything other than the missionary position is perverse, I guess we can count them as being against homosexuality, which is the perversion under discussion. (Wasn't it a refusal to have sex missionary style that got Lilith kicked out of Eden? LOL)
On the other hand, as I said, most of those other religions do believe that homosexuality is a perversion. That is a fact that you cannot deny.

Again you missed the point. You want the government to codify your beliefs about sexual perversion into law. Is it your position that only your beliefs get to be made into law?

I don't think the government ought to be involved in anyone's sexual decisions at all....they certainly don't need to be legalizing sexual perversions, imo.

Do you see the contradiction there?

Once again, the main one harmed by eating the high fat diet is the glutton.
And yes, I realize that there are normal people who engage in sodomy....however, the greatest threat is from homosexual men.
Did you even look at any of those sites? (I looked at your source . Not looking at mine could be construed as rude )
Did you know that, at one time, sodomy was against the law in the US?

Again you missed the point. You're arguing that sodomy should be illegal because it's unhealthy. My question is, should the government outlaw all unhealthy things? Or just the ones you don't approve of?

On the other hand, why would the gay couple volunteer that information?
Why not just order a cake for the "Jones-Smith" wedding, and not mention the gender of the bride or groom?
The baker would do the cake, and nobody would have to sue anybody....and the ACLU would have one less thing to keep them up at night...

In the cases I've read about, the Christian business owners asked "Is this for a same sex wedding". So my point is, why are they only asking about that one sin? If, as you've posted here before, all sins are equally bad in the eyes of God, shouldn't the Christian business owners who are so worried about supporting sin that they'll go to jail over it have some sort of sin checklist they go through with every prospective customer?

A wedding is, or ought to be, a once-in-a-lifetime affair.
For all the baker knows, the large cake or the well stocked buffet might be because the fat couple are expecting a large number of guests, and want to make sure that there is enough to go around.
And, like my own Dad, who dropped a small fortune on his little girl when I got married, some parents want their children's wedding day to be an event they will treasure all their lives. Is that a sin? If it is, then why did Jesus provide more wine for the wedding guests in Cana?
I think you are splitting hairs, here, dear one.
Neither of these cases has quite the same aura of perversion about it as a "gay wedding".

And this is where the hypocrisy comes in. When it comes to other types of sin, Christians are very accommodating and apologetic. "You're obese and have ordered a full buffet and large cake for a ceremony with only 10 people? No problem! It's a special event." As if God has a clause that says sin isn't sin if it's for a special occasion.

Oh, but when it comes to gays, no such accommodation or excuses are allowed. Suddenly it's all important to not be supporting sin in business transactions no matter what. Funny how that works.

And as I said earlier, those who have ears to hear will still hear God's Word.
And those who reject it on the grounds that Christians refuse to promote sin are not going to hear it in any case.

No, it's more along the lines of "Christians are hypocritical jerks when it comes to gays. I have no interest in being part of that group." It's sad how these bakers, florists, and county clerks have become the public face of Christianity.

Which doesn't change the fact that winning in court doesn't necessarily mean that one is right.

Morally, no. Legally, yes.

No one says that you must play with Marcus if you don't like him...

I understand where he's coming from. I see it from right-wing Christians all the time. Things aren't going their way and Christians are losing the special privileges they once enjoyed as non-Christians and minority faiths push back. And since we're supposed to be a secular society rather than a Christian theocracy, the non-Christians are consistently winning in court. And it's not because there's some sort of demonic agenda or anything, it's because legally they're right.

I understand how that's scary to groups who used to enjoy those special privileges. The country isn't run by them for their benefit any more. But to be honest with you, while I deeply lament the loss of faith that we're seeing (especially among the youth), I'm actually quite happy to see that we're more inclusive and tolerant than before. Gays, non-Christians, atheists, etc....they're all citizens and as such have just as much right to a public voice as anyone else. They have just as much right to not be discriminated against as anyone else. They have just as much right to go into businesses and be served as anyone else. They have just as much right to not have the government peering into and monitoring their sex lives as anyone else. They have just as much right to enter into consensual legal agreements as anyone else.

IOW, some groups don't have the power to oppress that they used to, and it scares them. I can't say that I'm too sad about that.