How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?

[Mr.Right]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a fucking circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

 

[emilynghiem]

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Yes and no, Mr.Right
Some gays/eunuchs are made by God's laws because of this sin you are talking about.
Any generational sin or karmic conditions not resolved in one generation may manifest later,.
until they are fully forgiven, resolved and healed -- in the process of bringing humanity to spiritual maturity, or fruition in Christ Jesus or perfect justice and peace.
So some of these spiritually "inborn" conditions are manifestations of past sins or karma
that are affecting future generations in order to be confronted, brought forth and healed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

What is ignorant and stupid about it?

Third time:

14th Amendment jurisprudence – the case law that renders state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law un-Constitutional – is applied only to government, not private persons, not churches, not religious organizations.

Consequently 'religious liberty' is in no way being 'violated,' no church hostile to gay Americans can or will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples in its marriage rituals – the 'argument' that invalidating state measures that deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to secular state marriage contract law fails as a red herring fallacy; religious beliefs and practices play no role in the issue whatsoever.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Do you agree somehow? Isn't the whole point of freedom of religion to be able to practice own religion (or not at all if atheists)? How is a gay-couple, who want equal freedom, marrying obstacle anybody's freedom to religion? It's not like legalizing gay marriage means making straight marriage illegal. conservatives argument against that is "it's against religion" is quite reasonable.

 

[Mr.Right]

Do you agree somehow? Isn't the whole point of freedom of religion to be able to practice own religion (or not at all if atheists)? How is a gay-couple, who want equal freedom, marrying obstacle anybody's freedom to religion? It's not like legalizing gay marriage means making straight marriage illegal. conservatives argument against that is "it's against religion" is quite reasonable.

I'm gonna steal that one.

 

[emilynghiem]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

What is ignorant and stupid about it?

Third time:

14th Amendment jurisprudence – the case law that renders state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law un-Constitutional – is applied only to government, not private persons, not churches, not religious organizations.

Consequently 'religious liberty' is in no way being 'violated,' no church hostile to gay Americans can or will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples in its marriage rituals – the 'argument' that invalidating state measures that deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to secular state marriage contract law fails as a red herring fallacy; religious beliefs and practices play no role in the issue whatsoever.

And WHERE does it say anything about
not having ANY marriages sanctified through the state.

That way, all couples are treated the same, regardless of orientation.

WHERE does it say anything about that?

It doesn't, C_Clayton_Jones

You DELIBERATELY leave out a SOLUTION that would prevent an either/or arguments.

This is SIMILAR TO setting up a straw man argument.

You deliberately set up marriage as through the state,
FORCING PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES TO ARGUE IN DEFENSE OF THEIR BELIEFS FROM OTHER BELIEFS,
instead of shifting it to the private sector where EVERYONE can be treated
equally and exercise their beliefs WITHOUT interference or infringement.

WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS???

You get it when it comes to keeping Christian beliefs out of govt instead of sanctioning that.

Why can't you get it in this case? That all MARRIAGE beliefs like RELIGIOUS beliefs are EQUAL in the private sector. But trying to ESTABLISH ONE BELIEF ABOUT MARRIAGE is like ESTABLISHING ONE RELIGION.

If people's BELIEFS don't agree, what difference does it make if
the law they disagree on is about Marriage or about Health Care.

People have a right to their BELIEFS not dictated by Govt.

C_Clayton_Jones are you going to say this is ignorant or stupid?

I can read what you are saying, but you are leaving out what I am saying.

Can someone else help explain this to CCJones in liberal terms?

 

[Unkotare]

False premise troll thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?"

It's not.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence invalidating state measures that seek to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations – such as churches, who remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate gay couples in religious marriage rituals.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

What is ignorant and stupid about it?

Third time:

14th Amendment jurisprudence – the case law that renders state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law un-Constitutional – is applied only to government, not private persons, not churches, not religious organizations.

Consequently 'religious liberty' is in no way being 'violated,' no church hostile to gay Americans can or will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples in its marriage rituals – the 'argument' that invalidating state measures that deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to secular state marriage contract law fails as a red herring fallacy; religious beliefs and practices play no role in the issue whatsoever.

And WHERE does it say anything about
not having ANY marriages sanctified through the state.

That way, all couples are treated the same, regardless of orientation.

WHERE does it say anything about that?

It doesn't, C_Clayton_Jones

You DELIBERATELY leave out a SOLUTION that would prevent an either/or arguments.

This is SIMILAR TO setting up a straw man argument.

You deliberately set up marriage as through the state,
FORCING PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES TO ARGUE IN DEFENSE OF THEIR BELIEFS FROM OTHER BELIEFS,
instead of shifting it to the private sector where EVERYONE can be treated
equally and exercise their beliefs WITHOUT interference or infringement.

WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS???

You get it when it comes to keeping Christian beliefs out of govt instead of sanctioning that.

Why can't you get it in this case? That all MARRIAGE beliefs like RELIGIOUS beliefs are EQUAL in the private sector. But trying to ESTABLISH ONE BELIEF ABOUT MARRIAGE is like ESTABLISHING ONE RELIGION.

If people's BELIEFS don't agree, what difference does it make if
the law they disagree on is about Marriage or about Health Care.

People have a right to their BELIEFS not dictated by Govt.

C_Clayton_Jones are you going to say this is ignorant or stupid?

I can read what you are saying, but you are leaving out what I am saying.

Can someone else help explain this to CCJones in liberal terms?

Your position remains ignorant, stupid, and wrong – no 'religious liberty' is 'violated' when un-Constitutional state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment are invalidated by the courts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
You fail to mention that keeping just the secular civil union and contracts under govt
would solve the problem by keeping any debated beliefs CLEARLY in the private sector.

Liberals are ADAMANT about keeping "right to life" beliefs out of govt.
But just as pushy as right to lifers when it comes to BELIEFS about right to marriage or right to health care.

Sorry if you cannot see the bias over creed, but keep favoring your SECULAR creed,
the same way Atheists claim their SECULAR beliefs don't count equally as religious as the beliefs of Christians.

Posting the same ignorance and stupidity again doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.

What is ignorant and stupid about it?

Third time:

14th Amendment jurisprudence – the case law that renders state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law un-Constitutional – is applied only to government, not private persons, not churches, not religious organizations.

Consequently 'religious liberty' is in no way being 'violated,' no church hostile to gay Americans can or will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples in its marriage rituals – the 'argument' that invalidating state measures that deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to secular state marriage contract law fails as a red herring fallacy; religious beliefs and practices play no role in the issue whatsoever.

And WHERE does it say anything about
not having ANY marriages sanctified through the state.

That way, all couples are treated the same, regardless of orientation.

WHERE does it say anything about that?

It doesn't, C_Clayton_Jones

You DELIBERATELY leave out a SOLUTION that would prevent an either/or arguments.

This is SIMILAR TO setting up a straw man argument.

You deliberately set up marriage as through the state,
FORCING PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES TO ARGUE IN DEFENSE OF THEIR BELIEFS FROM OTHER BELIEFS,
instead of shifting it to the private sector where EVERYONE can be treated
equally and exercise their beliefs WITHOUT interference or infringement.

WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS???

You get it when it comes to keeping Christian beliefs out of govt instead of sanctioning that.

Why can't you get it in this case? That all MARRIAGE beliefs like RELIGIOUS beliefs are EQUAL in the private sector. But trying to ESTABLISH ONE BELIEF ABOUT MARRIAGE is like ESTABLISHING ONE RELIGION.

If people's BELIEFS don't agree, what difference does it make if
the law they disagree on is about Marriage or about Health Care.

People have a right to their BELIEFS not dictated by Govt.

C_Clayton_Jones are you going to say this is ignorant or stupid?

I can read what you are saying, but you are leaving out what I am saying.

Can someone else help explain this to CCJones in liberal terms?

Your position remains ignorant, stupid, and wrong – no 'religious liberty' is 'violated' when un-Constitutional state measures seeking to deny gay Americans their rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment are invalidated by the courts.

We aren't even focused on the same point, C_Clayton_Jones

1. You are trying to argue there is no religious freedom violated while the people whose beliefs are violated are saying they are. That's your argument and it goes in circles because of the way you set it up. You define it to be your way so of course by that set up you prove your point SIMILAR TO a strawman argument.

2. I am trying to AVOID setting up the conflict altogether.

So even if YOU don't believe there is an issue, and someone else DOES, this set up (of keeping marriage out of the state) PREVENTS you from having to argue in the first place! it sets up both sides to get what they want without stepping on each other -- "real or perceived or what" ie REGARDLESS if any such religious infringement exists or not. You don't have to argue about that, for the solution to WORK.

So it bypasses the need to argue.

You can continue to argue back and forth about scenario 1, and you can be right by YOUR set up, but the opponents will STILL ARGUE. So that setup only solves the problem for YOU and for people who think like YOU. but it does NOT solve the problem for opponents who still argue they are being WRONGED.

Your arguments are not equally inclusive of people of all beliefs, but they are only right for people who think and believe as you do.

That's why I support scenario 2 (ie consensus on law, either separate marriage from the govt, and/or write laws neutrally where all sides agree there is no infringement)
THIS way includes BOTH the people who think and agree with you AND THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE.

C_Clayton_Jones
Do you see how this is similar to arguments about prayer in schools? People can argue back and forth "there's no infringement" by removing prayer because people can pray in private, or there's no need to prohibit free exercise because it isn't forcing anyone to believe, back and forth, back and forth.

OR people can agree to buy out their school districts and take back local control of their programs so they AVOID the whole issue of trying to force one policy for all the people in all the districts of a state or the entire nation.

THAT scenario would BYPASS any need to argue over which way to impose globally. By keeping school policy locally decided so people have a direct say and quit fighting over a blanket policy imposed by the state. <-- only use state laws for what all people AGREE ON for the schools (and keep anything they disagree on religiously to decide in private per district).

In both cases, you have a choice to
1. set up the schools/marriage to be under the state, where people like you fight back and forth on whether there is infringement or not

2. SEPARATE the marriage/schools OUT FROM UNDER Govt, localize it and give back to the people the free choice to make decisions and exercise their beliefs about these policies.

I keep advocating for scenario 2.

To avoid arguing back and forth over scenario 1, which apparently YOU don't mind repeating OVER AND OVER.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Civil unions that provide equal government benefits for various pairings to gain the same that "married" couples are no problem. But there are two issues here, first: marriage, as traditionally defined by religious groups is one man-one woman. If the LGBTQ community were to extend the same respect to those religious beliefs that the demand for themselves, they would lobby for equal consideration of their unions under civil law and perhaps consider a respectful alternative designation that would carry the same weight civilly that has been granted the religious unions.
Second, even granted the designation of "marriage" to their unions, the LGBTQ community seems dead set on denying any consideration of religious perspectives vis-a-vis such unions. They use the force of law to deny religious people their right to not accept same-sex unions. (PS: "same-sex" should signify any "marriage", since most religious connotations appear to deny sexual access to any other partner than the one contractually bonded by law/belief.)

Because 'civil unions' constitute segregation, which is just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws they're currently eligible to participate in.

And again: 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not religious entities – who may perceive marriage however they wish.

 

[BlindBoo]

Marriage is licensed by the state but performed by the church. When governments begin to license gay marriages, it has the potential to collide with freedom of religion. Certain churches/religions oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, as a sin.

Wait, my marriage was not performed by the church. The state has no business sanctioning only religious marriages.

 

[BlindBoo]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a fucking circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

 

[hipeter924]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a fucking circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

There is no hell to go to. Though homosexuality in the bible is no more sinful than eating shellfish, divorce, adultatory, and so on. So gays aren't going to 'burn' any more than the other 99% of Christians who have sinned.

 

[Mr.Right]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a fucking circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

There is no hell to go to. Though homosexuality in the bible is no more sinful than eating shellfish, divorce, adultatory, and so on. So gays aren't going to 'burn' any more than the other 99% of Christians who have sinned.

Idiot. Participating in the gay lifestyle is more that just sinning. It is a complete rejection of the natural order and is an abomination. The Bible explicitly states that these people will not see the kingdom of God. Read the Bible. Educate yourself

 

[Mr.Right]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a fucking circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

God doesn't kill them. They die because man sinned. It's our fault.

 

[whitehall]

Eating pork isn't against "freedom of religion" either unless the state tries to force Muslems to cook pork so that Christians can enjoy it. In the most tolerant Country in the world sodomites can find a bakery to make a homosexual wedding cake but they troll for discrimination by devout Christians and then they whine about the unfairness of it all.

 

[BlindBoo]

Homosexuality is a fashion statement. In fact, all Liberal causes are nothing more than fashion statements.

If it's fashion for them, and if anyone disagrees with it, then those in disagreement are automatically labeled hater dupes.

It's a fucking circle-jerk. And a no-win argument.

They are truly that sick.

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

God doesn't kill them. They die because man sinned. It's our fault.

Collective punishment for the entire race?

Your God sounds like a war criminal.

 

[Mr.Right]

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

God doesn't kill them. They die because man sinned. It's our fault.

Collective punishment for the entire race?

Your God sounds like a war criminal.

Think about it. If someone has some recessive genes that have a high chance of causing birth defects, yet they decide to have children anyway, it will likely produce birth defects.

Now the problem with the human race is that we are spiritually dead, as were Adam and Eve. Could someone who is spiritually dead produce children who are spiritually Alive? The answer is no.

Also, God provided a way out. He sent His only Son to pay the price of our sin. Doesn't sound like a war criminal to me. He seems like a loving father, who gave us a second chance, even though we sinned against Him. A chance we really didn't deserve.

 

[hipeter924]

It's more than that, Mr. H. people are NOT homosexual or transgender oriented as some external fashion choice.

It's spiritually born and can spiritually change, depending on the person and circumstances/path in life.

Christianity is not just an external show of faith on the outside either.
It represents a whole spiritual path, process and relationship.

These issues of belief are inherently part of someone's life.
How can you ask gay lobbyists to respect Christian beliefs as valid,
but then you denigrate their beliefs?
Why do you think they don't get it either, that there's more to it than what they think is going on politically?
It's not just political opposition or statement, there are issues involved that represent people's direction in life.

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

There is no hell to go to. Though homosexuality in the bible is no more sinful than eating shellfish, divorce, adultatory, and so on. So gays aren't going to 'burn' any more than the other 99% of Christians who have sinned.

Idiot. Participating in the gay lifestyle is more that just sinning. It is a complete rejection of the natural order and is an abomination. The Bible explicitly states that these people will not see the kingdom of God. Read the Bible. Educate yourself

I have read the bible, many different bibles in fact. Nonbelievers score higher than Evangelical Christians such as yourself in knowledge of the bible, and near equal to Jews and Mormons (if not more so).

It doesn't explicitly state anything in regards to gays being more likely hell bound than any other use, as abomination is used in reference to consuming certain foods as well.

Though, I figure that you believe (incorrectly) as well that Sodom and Gomarrah were not select cases. Even though it quite clearly refers to conduct towards the angels, and the general debauchery of the place - homosexuality was not the reason they were destroyed.

 

[Mr.Right]

Technically if it is born, it is 'God's creation', and mankind was created upon his template. So to suggest that gay people are un-natural or not meant to be, is blasphemy - as god doesn't make mistakes.

If someone/something is alive it has a purpose and a role to play in 'gods plan', whatever that may be. And people will be judged by how they interact with said creatures.

Some narrow-minded people think in basic terms of fight or flight in regards to homosexuals and ignore the whole 'love' thing, which requires Christians to love neighbors and even enemies.

Of course I am not religious so that has little bearing on me, but for those devoutly religious, it matters that god is omnipresent and omnipotent - not fallable.

God's Creation was perfect. Sin has had many centuries to mess things up. Gays were not created by God. They are something that evolved, and are an abomination to God. Anyone who is a practicing gay is going to hell. Period.

Why does god kill children with cancer?

Why does god kill children through starvation?

There is no hell to go to. Though homosexuality in the bible is no more sinful than eating shellfish, divorce, adultatory, and so on. So gays aren't going to 'burn' any more than the other 99% of Christians who have sinned.

Idiot. Participating in the gay lifestyle is more that just sinning. It is a complete rejection of the natural order and is an abomination. The Bible explicitly states that these people will not see the kingdom of God. Read the Bible. Educate yourself

I have read the bible, many different bibles in fact. Nonbelievers score higher than Evangelical Christians such as yourself in knowledge of the bible, and near equal to Jews and Mormons (if not more so).

It doesn't explicitly state anything in regards to gays being more likely hell bound than any other use, as abomination is used in reference to consuming certain foods as well.

Though, I figure that you believe (incorrectly) as well that Sodom and Gomarrah were not select cases. Even though it quite clearly refers to conduct towards the angels, and the general debauchery of the place - homosexuality was not the reason they were destroyed.

I have to disagree with you about that poll. A true Christian will know more about scripture than atheist. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, so the poll data could very well have included many who are Christians in name only. A true Christian is one reads and obeys the word of God. Also a true Christian would be better able to correctly interpret scripture. This is simply just another example of how polls are worthless.