How is legalizing gay-marriage against freedom of religion?

[SassyIrishLass]

No it doesn't, the New Covenant did away with dietary laws.

No it doesn't, the New Covenant did away with dietary laws.

In your opinion, though the hypocrisy is equating homosexuality as being more/less sinful than those dietary laws.

Homosexuality is a sin in both the Old and New Testaments. I thought you said you knew the Bible better than a Christian?

Read what I said again, as I didn't say it wasn't a sin. In the English language more/less doesn't equal none.

I know what you said and again the dietary laws are no longer a sin.....homosexuality is.

Still your opinion. The book is still out on whether it truly was a blanket statement: In Mark 7 14-23 Jesus declares all foods clean . Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11

LOL You're grasping but I expected it. You're simply unable to prove your initial premise atheists know more than Christians regarding the Bible.

The bottom line is homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible. That be a fact.

 

[MaryL]

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.

Its not against freedom of religion to legalize Gay Marriage. What is against freedom of religion is forcing someone to do business with someone they choose not to do business with because of a difference in religious beliefs. I should not have the US Federal Government on my back because I don't want to make a cake for a Gay couple. And if you harm my business on twitter or wherever else I should be able to sue your ass! That's freedom!

It is not required by the Constitution that anyone has to accept people with sexual dysfunctions, let alone accept sexually dysfunctional people mandating what societal norms should be. Especially if it violates their right to follow their religion. Or their own conscience. I can't accept homosexuality because it is so unreasonable and disgusting. As an agnostic. It would be different if people wouldn't pretend to make this a human rights issue when instead, it is a mental health issue. But I already know how that goes.

 

[hipeter924]

In your opinion, though the hypocrisy is equating homosexuality as being more/less sinful than those dietary laws.

Homosexuality is a sin in both the Old and New Testaments. I thought you said you knew the Bible better than a Christian?

Read what I said again, as I didn't say it wasn't a sin. In the English language more/less doesn't equal none.

I know what you said and again the dietary laws are no longer a sin.....homosexuality is.

Still your opinion. The book is still out on whether it truly was a blanket statement: In Mark 7 14-23 Jesus declares all foods clean . Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11

LOL You're grasping but I expected it. You're simply unable to prove your initial premise atheists know more than Christians regarding the Bible.

The bottom line is homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible. That be a fact.

The bottom line, is that you want the bible to portray a hell where everyone you don't like goes. What actually is in the bible, be damned.

Quite good videos on you tube pointing out the curious thing that when x person 'rejects' the god of person y, person y takes it hard, as they view god as themselves.

You see god as you want to see it, a god that has a thing more against gays than he has against women, shellfish, tribes that don't worship him, adulterers, people who divorce...and so on.

I can promise you one thing though, that there will be no pearly gates, no hell, just a fading to black. But guess that is 'faith', believing that something will come to be without absolute evidence.

I don't need to take a bet with you, but pretty sure that you will be disappointed in what you find.

If I 'burn' though, I would take it as a badge of honor to share the honor with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and pretty much every modern thinker that held a different faith to your own. Hitchens viewed god as a tyrant or a celestial North Korea.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Homosexuality is a sin in both the Old and New Testaments. I thought you said you knew the Bible better than a Christian?

Read what I said again, as I didn't say it wasn't a sin. In the English language more/less doesn't equal none.

I know what you said and again the dietary laws are no longer a sin.....homosexuality is.

Still your opinion. The book is still out on whether it truly was a blanket statement: In Mark 7 14-23 Jesus declares all foods clean . Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11

LOL You're grasping but I expected it. You're simply unable to prove your initial premise atheists know more than Christians regarding the Bible.

The bottom line is homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible. That be a fact.

The bottom line, is that you want the bible to portray a hell where everyone you don't like goes. What actually is in the bible, be damned.

Quite good videos on you tube pointing out the curious thing that when x person 'rejects' the god of person y, person y takes it hard, as they view god as themselves.

You see god as you want to see it, a god that has a thing more against gays than he has against women, shellfish, tribes that don't worship him, adulterers, people who divorce...and so on.

I can promise you one thing though, that there will be no pearly gates, no hell, just a fading to black. But guess that is 'faith', believing that something will come to be without absolute evidence.

I don't need to take a bet with you, but pretty sure that you will be disappointed in what you find.

If I 'burn' though, I would take it as a badge of honor to share the honor with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and pretty much every modern thinker that held a different faith to your own. Hitchens viewed god as a tyrant or a celestial North Korea.

That's simply your opinion and if you don't believe in it all then I suggest you stop attempting to use the Bible over it.

 

[hipeter924]

Read what I said again, as I didn't say it wasn't a sin. In the English language more/less doesn't equal none.

I know what you said and again the dietary laws are no longer a sin.....homosexuality is.

Still your opinion. The book is still out on whether it truly was a blanket statement: In Mark 7 14-23 Jesus declares all foods clean . Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11

LOL You're grasping but I expected it. You're simply unable to prove your initial premise atheists know more than Christians regarding the Bible.

The bottom line is homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible. That be a fact.

The bottom line, is that you want the bible to portray a hell where everyone you don't like goes. What actually is in the bible, be damned.

Quite good videos on you tube pointing out the curious thing that when x person 'rejects' the god of person y, person y takes it hard, as they view god as themselves.

You see god as you want to see it, a god that has a thing more against gays than he has against women, shellfish, tribes that don't worship him, adulterers, people who divorce...and so on.

I can promise you one thing though, that there will be no pearly gates, no hell, just a fading to black. But guess that is 'faith', believing that something will come to be without absolute evidence.

I don't need to take a bet with you, but pretty sure that you will be disappointed in what you find.

If I 'burn' though, I would take it as a badge of honor to share the honor with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and pretty much every modern thinker that held a different faith to your own. Hitchens viewed god as a tyrant or a celestial North Korea.

That's simply your opinion and if you don't believe in it all then I suggest you stop attempting to use the Bible over it.

Not my opinion, but fact. You integrate god with your own ego, and generate a worldview through it.

 

[hipeter924]

Edit: Hence, 'personal connection with god' and all that jazz.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I know what you said and again the dietary laws are no longer a sin.....homosexuality is.

Still your opinion. The book is still out on whether it truly was a blanket statement: In Mark 7 14-23 Jesus declares all foods clean . Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11

LOL You're grasping but I expected it. You're simply unable to prove your initial premise atheists know more than Christians regarding the Bible.

The bottom line is homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible. That be a fact.

The bottom line, is that you want the bible to portray a hell where everyone you don't like goes. What actually is in the bible, be damned.

Quite good videos on you tube pointing out the curious thing that when x person 'rejects' the god of person y, person y takes it hard, as they view god as themselves.

You see god as you want to see it, a god that has a thing more against gays than he has against women, shellfish, tribes that don't worship him, adulterers, people who divorce...and so on.

I can promise you one thing though, that there will be no pearly gates, no hell, just a fading to black. But guess that is 'faith', believing that something will come to be without absolute evidence.

I don't need to take a bet with you, but pretty sure that you will be disappointed in what you find.

If I 'burn' though, I would take it as a badge of honor to share the honor with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and pretty much every modern thinker that held a different faith to your own. Hitchens viewed god as a tyrant or a celestial North Korea.

That's simply your opinion and if you don't believe in it all then I suggest you stop attempting to use the Bible over it.

Not my opinion, but fact. You integrate god with your own ego, and generate a worldview through it.

Uh oh, you've stated it as "fact". Prove it please. I won't wait because we both know you can't. In short you just lost all credibility

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

It's not. It's political. Republicans have nothing to offer except diversion.

 

[hipeter924]

Still your opinion. The book is still out on whether it truly was a blanket statement: In Mark 7 14-23 Jesus declares all foods clean . Does this statement nullify the Old Testament dietary law outlined in Leviticus 11

LOL You're grasping but I expected it. You're simply unable to prove your initial premise atheists know more than Christians regarding the Bible.

The bottom line is homosexuality is indeed a sin according to the Bible. That be a fact.

The bottom line, is that you want the bible to portray a hell where everyone you don't like goes. What actually is in the bible, be damned.

Quite good videos on you tube pointing out the curious thing that when x person 'rejects' the god of person y, person y takes it hard, as they view god as themselves.

You see god as you want to see it, a god that has a thing more against gays than he has against women, shellfish, tribes that don't worship him, adulterers, people who divorce...and so on.

I can promise you one thing though, that there will be no pearly gates, no hell, just a fading to black. But guess that is 'faith', believing that something will come to be without absolute evidence.

I don't need to take a bet with you, but pretty sure that you will be disappointed in what you find.

If I 'burn' though, I would take it as a badge of honor to share the honor with Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and pretty much every modern thinker that held a different faith to your own. Hitchens viewed god as a tyrant or a celestial North Korea.

That's simply your opinion and if you don't believe in it all then I suggest you stop attempting to use the Bible over it.

Not my opinion, but fact. You integrate god with your own ego, and generate a worldview through it.

Uh oh, you've stated it as "fact". Prove it please. I won't wait because we both know you can't. In short you just lost all credibility

Easy. You stated that 'x' god views homosexuality as a sin more than that of other sins like adulatory, and then all the talk of hellfire - lovely.

Call your god forth, and we can have a party, if not you have no proof (beyond hersay, hallunicationic experiences, and speculation) that he exists or that his extraordinary claims have merit.

Toasting people in another realm like marshmallows because they are gay is a pretty extraordinary claim. So why shouldn't I ask you to prove it, beyond your own interpretation of the bible.

 

[hipeter924]

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.

It's not. It's political. Republicans have nothing to offer except diversion.

Subjective morality on account of ones personal dislikes of taste, touch, smell or aesthetics always is. Which is what the debate comes down to, just as it did with race mixing and fashions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

You're a bottom Republican, so you'd be the woman?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well at least you need me to be a woman in your fantasies. It ain't much, but you should probably cling to it.

 

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't

Then again, it does not seem that the lobby is done sith gaining marriage. Gays have marriage now and in the few states that have not recognized it yet the federal government is going to force them too.

Now it is all about forcing people that do not agree to accept it though. It is about creating a protected class. That is where you start stepping on rights.

No it's all about equal treatment under the law. Most states don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry, but they ARE recognized in all 50 from the states that do allow them.

That is what the marriage debate was about and guess what - you have already won that one. Has the activism stopped? Nope, NOW they are seeking special protections and lergal provisions.

 

[deltex1]

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.

Forget religion...its against logic, common sense and the eternal definition of the institution. The aims of people who want the "benefits" the state has developed, can be gained by civil agreements.

 

[Seawytch]

It doesn't

Then again, it does not seem that the lobby is done sith gaining marriage. Gays have marriage now and in the few states that have not recognized it yet the federal government is going to force them too.

Now it is all about forcing people that do not agree to accept it though. It is about creating a protected class. That is where you start stepping on rights.

No it's all about equal treatment under the law. Most states don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry, but they ARE recognized in all 50 from the states that do allow them.

That is what the marriage debate was about and guess what - you have already won that one. Has the activism stopped? Nope, NOW they are seeking special protections and lergal provisions.

Really? When did we "win that one"? The last time I checked, my legal civil marriage license was NOT valid in all 50 states. Did I sleep through the SCOTUS ruling?

What "special protections"? The same ones that protect other minorities?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your brand of Polytheism. But you are on the right track about spirituality. Generally speaking the Western religions have taken spirituality out of their religion.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Its not against freedom of religion to legalize Gay Marriage. What is against freedom of religion is forcing someone to do business with someone they choose not to do business with because of a difference in religious beliefs. I should not have the US Federal Government on my back because I don't want to make a cake for a Gay couple. And if you harm my business on twitter or wherever else I should be able to sue your ass! That's freedom!

The Feds do not protect LGBT persons like they do race or sex...... The cases so far have been by various states.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

That would be a religious definition. For people who do not believe in God marriage is not just for one man and one woman anymore. Time to quit discriminating against gay couples base on religious beliefs.

 

[hipeter924]

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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your brand of Polytheism. But you are on the right track about spirituality. Generally speaking the Western religions have taken spirituality out of their religion.

A loving father doesn't burn his children alive for eternity when they break his rules.

If I wanted to live in a celestial dictatorship, all I would need to do is move to North Korea or Iran.

Fortunately, there is no evidence such a future exists after death, as the dead can't come back to life and tell their tales, excluding zombie Jesus.

I have talked to plenty of Christians though that believe in a loving and forgiving god, rather than a hateful, vengeful, jealous one.

Have met ex-Catholics that left the church, and firmly believe that there is no hell, as well as that everyone has a path to heaven.

Also know devout Catholics that believe that caring for and loving others is the most important thing a Christian could do in this world, and that is not the role of a Christian to judge.