Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
What have we learned.
We have learned eating pork or lobster is the same as being gay.
We have learned the free market has a way of weeding out businesses which do not serve the interests of the community. We have learned bigots are hypocrites when this principle works to their disadvantage.
We have learned that when a community fights back against haters, the haters are the biggest whiners of all.
In those days, eating pork or lobster could easily be a death sentence so it isn't at all surprising that someone would pass a rule against it.
Eat this lobster, fall over dead. Not that the region was overrun with lobsters. They must have had some kind of shellfish that would cause someone who ate it to stop breathing. How many people do you suppose ate shellfish and died? Or ate pork and got trichinosis and died before someone said "Maybe this isn't something we should be doing".
How incredibly obtuse can you be? Slavery during the roman times, just as slavery in our civil war era, most certainly did comprise both indentured servitude and permanent slavery. That you think slaves were all volunteers during Biblical times is laughable.
That bakery was not forced to close, they closed because the customers eschewed them. They chose to throw stones at the gays... in response the community at large who used to be their customers... walked away. IMO the bakery owners should have followed the teachings of Jesus and put down their stones.
Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.
So...judge not, lest ye be judged. You'll spend eternity in hell for pulling your pud, surrounded by homos.
Every year, approximately 42,000 cases of salmonellosis are reported in the United States. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported, the actual number of infections may be twenty-nine or more times greater.
During 20082010, 20 cases were reported per year on average.
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
I double dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.
[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] I triple dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.
I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.
The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.
Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.
Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.
Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman who were not married to anybody else, who were at least a certain age, and who were not too closely related. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.
Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.
Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?
If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.
Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.
So...judge not, lest ye be judged. You'll spend eternity in hell for pulling your pud, surrounded by homos.
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
Hire a gay person to do their deliveries?
How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?
I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?
If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?
The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views
where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?
I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Am I the minority in the wrong here?
Before you state something as "fact" you should check your facts:
#1 - In the majority of States that recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage the approval of that action was done either be legislative action or through voter approved referendum.
#2 - In no state where there is Same-sex Civil Marriage has it been implemented by court action has it been the result of "one activist judge". In each and every case the initial judges ruling was appealed and approved by the appeals process and ruled on by the State Supreme Court based on the non-discrimination provisions of that States Constitution. In no state has SSCM been implemented through the ruling of one judge.
>>>>
But regardless of the issue--whether same sex marriage or any other issue--the state Supreme Court or the federal Supreme Court is nevertheless a court that is intended to interpret the law, sort out conflicts that exist between two opposing laws or whatever. The Court was never intended to make law at any level.
Therefore, it should be the state legislature, whether on their own initiative or via public referendum, that makes the law the law. And if a state determines, quite rightfully, that existing marriage laws discriminate against nobody--which none of them do--every man, woman, and child is treated exactly the same--then no court should be able to change that law into something different purely because they think the law doesn't go far enough or isn't a good law.
We have a terrible situation in this state right now because activist judges are authorizing same sex marriage outside the juridiction of the state legislature. Regardless of your opinions on same sex marriage, that should never be acceptable.
So your opinion is that the courts should have taken no action to overturn ban's on interracial marriage bans (the first being California in 1948) despite non-discrimination provisions in the State and Federal Constitutions?
That blank people should have just sucked it up?
>>>>
we'd actually get our government back from political hijackers if we separated
political beliefs from constitutional standards that are independent and universal!
Not so much. There's maybe one vague reference to marriage being between a man and a woman in the new testament that has nothing to do with gays at all. And the old testament just had one mention to my understanding. The new testament is more than just an augmentation of the old testament. Would you say slavery is not a sin because it's in the bible? Just because there is one reference in the old test. to a Jewish law of antiquity, does not make being gay a sin. Should we be sacrificing goats and stoning sinners in the streets?
Sorry:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Do you eat lobster or crab?
Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."
How about pork. Do you eat pork? See Lev. 11:4.
copying and pasting online said:The Dalai Lama and Homosexuality
At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; 'From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.' He very soon found that he had stumbled into a pink minefield when some Western Buddhists, a significant number of who are gay, loudly expressed their outrage. Together with promoting the Dhamma, the Dalai Lama's main purpose in touring the West is to win support for his cause, and to this end he defiantly does not want to alienate anyone. As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the 'willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context'.
Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet released a suitably politically correct and safe statement; 'His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all.' Ruffled feathers were smoothed, gay Western Tibetan Buddhists left convinced that the Dalai Lama approved of their sexual orientation and the Dalai Lama continued believing that homosexuality is wrong - only now making a careful note never to say so again in public.
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
The refused to make a cake. This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit. It's made up.
This was not about attending a gay wedding. I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.
So just put that fantasy down.
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
The refused to make a cake. This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit. It's made up.
This was not about attending a gay wedding. I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.
So just put that fantasy down.
These bakers had baked special event cakes for this same couple before. It isn't a matter of picking up a cake. Put the damn cake in a cab.
Wedding cakes are tiered. They require construction so they don't fall over. If it was a sheet cake or a two layer cake, this would never have happened. It would have been like the birthday cake they made before.
Sorry:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Do you eat lobster or crab?
Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."
How about pork. Do you eat pork? See Lev. 11:4.
Yes G5000. Shellfish and bottomdwellers as seafood are bad for you. That wisdom is still true. And Pork is bad, even if it is cooked well, there are health issues with it.
So the wisdom in the Bible is true; and Buddhist and Nation of Islam and other spiritual groups are finding this out and following that for better health.
As for homosexuality, adultery in general is bad for the physical mental emotional and relationship health of people. Homosexuality just happens to be one expression of sex between people outside of a committed marital relationship.
Many Buddhists recognize homosexual relations are not natural, and they are not judgmental. The problem is teh karma that goes into people incarnated or manifesting in homosexual relations -- some karma can be that from person, but some of it may not be; so not all cases are the same and that is why it's impossible to judge from the outside.
In the end, the common factor is that it causes suffering. Something is wrong where it causes these conflicts. It is NOT natural. People may be born to live a life this way, but there is something unnatural causing it. Just because we don't judge the person for it, doesn't make it natural. It is still a sign of something out of balance outside the norm.
Do you eat lobster or crab?
Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."
How about pork. Do you eat pork? See Lev. 11:4.
Yes G5000. Shellfish and bottomdwellers as seafood are bad for you. That wisdom is still true. And Pork is bad, even if it is cooked well, there are health issues with it.
So the wisdom in the Bible is true; and Buddhist and Nation of Islam and other spiritual groups are finding this out and following that for better health.
As for homosexuality, adultery in general is bad for the physical mental emotional and relationship health of people. Homosexuality just happens to be one expression of sex between people outside of a committed marital relationship.
Many Buddhists recognize homosexual relations are not natural, and they are not judgmental. The problem is teh karma that goes into people incarnated or manifesting in homosexual relations -- some karma can be that from person, but some of it may not be; so not all cases are the same and that is why it's impossible to judge from the outside.
In the end, the common factor is that it causes suffering. Something is wrong where it causes these conflicts. It is NOT natural. People may be born to live a life this way, but there is something unnatural causing it. Just because we don't judge the person for it, doesn't make it natural. It is still a sign of something out of balance outside the norm.
Adultery, fornication, promiscuity cause disease. It's not like they had antibiotics in those days. Better to just make a rule that says "don't".
Examination of Egyptian mummies do show the existence of an AIDS like virus. Egypt at its end normalized homosexuality. It does not take a biblical scholar to figure out that these rules made exceptional sense for the time. Don't allow a menstruating woman in your house at least until kotex is invented. Do not suffer a witch to live because those women who make a living gathering plants and small animals out in the wilderness make poisons that can kill days after the witch has moved on.
They were freaking geniuses to have figured out that much.
How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?
I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?
If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?
The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views
where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?
I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Am I the minority in the wrong here?
>>> How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?
Great question. One would have to put one's feet in the shoes of the people in question. That's why I mentioned the refusal to serve black people. Remember "whites" only water fountains? Remember back of the bus?... yeah well this is the same thing only gays... refusing to serve gays is a vicious slap... not physical but a violation of human rights none the less. I'm white, as shown, but I've also been violated in this manner by anti-white male bias to "right the wrongs" of my forefathers. Whether it's being overlooked for a promotion cycle because of the color of ones skin and gender, or some other act of discrimination, being discriminated against in this fashion is a vicious blow.
E and R said:2. >>> If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?
No. Turning down a high publicity death is different. That is turning down one person because of publicity. Being adverse to publicity is not discrimination based on race, creed, sexual preference or what not.
E and R said:3.
>>> The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?
That is no different than asking for acceptance of the KKK. Is it permitted to be in the KKK? yes. Does that mean I should call for acceptance and understanding of a group of racists? no probably not...
E and R said:4.
>>> I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Respect both... don't think so but respect your right to do so. What is there to respect about gay bashing? Constitutionally necessary? yes... just as with the KKK you are free to be gay basher in this country so long as you don't use violence. As you say this more a necessity of a free society (Constitution). Respect is not quite the word I would pick. accept maybe...
E and R said:5.
>>> Am I the minority in the wrong here?
Partly, yes. Partly, no
