Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Skylar]

How is my saying, "Yes, your relationship is just like my marriage" essential for them to get married? How is having a specific baker bake their wedding cake required for them to get married?

No one's "not allowing" it. We just aren't agreeing with it. Doesn't stop them from having a marriage, if that's what they think it is, any more than my thinking the next-door neighbor's marriage is a sham because he's fucking three or four women a week on the side (my actual neighbor doesn't, but if he did . . .)

But here's the thing. Your neighbor who fucks three or four other women STILL gets the legal recognition of his marriage. His wife still gets the legal protections that the other four women don't get. He has a heart attack while boning Mistress #3, the wife still gets all his property and custody of the kids.

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

Two problems with that reasoning. First, not all gays could get the same legal protections or benefits. Second, why should they have to? They have to put in far more expense and energy to get inferior legal results. Marriage is far simpler and far broader with a far more complete set of protections.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

In 37 of 50 States the government recongizes same sex marriage as being as legally valid as straight marriage. And in a few weeks it will be 50 of 50 States.

That's consistency.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Already in process. Obergefell. Remember the name.

 

[aris2chat]

The debate of human rights for gays is not about sexual abuse or rape, it is about two people of the same sex falling in love and sharing their lives.
It is not about sin, but about people at fall in love.
Why is this so hateful to others? What are they so afraid of? They don't have a plague that is contagious. They are not proselytizing a religion. They are not forcing others to join in their bedroom activities. They just want not to be condemned or abuse because of who they are genetically attracted to.

That's what you say it is.

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It's not about hate. I hate anyone. Hillary Clinton comes the closest with a standing "absolute distrust and dislike".

It's not about hate.

Sin.... is sin. We as Christians are to avoid being involved in sin. We can't be involved in a same sex marriage. Period. Doesn't mean I hate you.

If I was Jewish, I can't eat pork. Does that mean I hate pig farmers? People who eat bacon? No. I just can't be involved in that. It's part of my faith.

If I am a Muslim, I can't drink alcohol. Does that mean I hate the brewers, or the bar owners? No. I just can't partake in that.

I'm a Christian. I can't be involved in SSM. It's sin to me. Does that mean I 'hate' the people who are gay? No. I just can't supply a SSM wedding with cakes, or photo-shoots, or catering. It's part of my faith.

It's that simple.

As a jew you should not eat pork but their are exception to kashrut laws when there are no alternatives. It does not require you to starve or harm your heath till you can obtain kosher food. Even the orthodox understand that. It is the same for religious fasting for females who are pregnant or nursing, or for those in poor health or those in services like police, fire dept. or doctors. It is the same for working on the sabbath. There are reasonable exception.

If you are a muslim you are still permitted to take medicine, knowing or unknowing it contains a narcotic or alcohol. There are live saving and required meds that alter perception and behavior. We give allergy meds to our children and antibiotics that might not be 'kosher or halal' because of meal times or the need to take with meals. Not everything 'written' is absolute. If those who study the talmud and hadiths know the laws are adaptable to different circumstances and not fixed.

Life is not that simple nor are the religious laws, or civil laws.

It might have been a life time ago, but I am well read in most religious text. I can't always quote by chapter and verse but that does make me ignorant.

There is a reason we read the law, civil or religious, by the spirit and not the letter on occasion. Why even among religious lawyers and courts there is dissent on many issues. Why people have to use their best judgement, in life and in the law.

 

[aris2chat]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

I am going to use very small words ... maybe you'll be able to understand.

You ask where the long list of issues that RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on .... the answer is simple. All of them .......

Just because we are tolerant does not indicate that, in any way, we are accepting of deviant, or sinful, behavior. I will tolerate your homosexuality, even as I disagree with it. I will tolerate a lot of things ... but it doesn't mean that I have to accept them.

Christians have an old saying - love the sinner, but hate the sin. Atheists, and Muslims, cannot tolerate sinners. You insist on assassinating (either physically or their character) anyone who disagrees with your position. I love you, and hope you get to spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, but I find you (the collective you) to be incredibly self centered, biased, and prejudiced. It is your intolerance the problem, not mine.

It does not mean you should persecute others that you don't accept either.

 

[Spare_change]

So where's the long list of issues that the RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on,

despite their disagreement with the left on those issues?

I am going to use very small words ... maybe you'll be able to understand.

You ask where the long list of issues that RW'ers are willing to be tolerant on .... the answer is simple. All of them .......

Just because we are tolerant does not indicate that, in any way, we are accepting of deviant, or sinful, behavior. I will tolerate your homosexuality, even as I disagree with it. I will tolerate a lot of things ... but it doesn't mean that I have to accept them.

Christians have an old saying - love the sinner, but hate the sin. Atheists, and Muslims, cannot tolerate sinners. You insist on assassinating (either physically or their character) anyone who disagrees with your position. I love you, and hope you get to spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, but I find you (the collective you) to be incredibly self centered, biased, and prejudiced. It is your intolerance the problem, not mine.

It does not mean you should persecute others that you don't accept either.

You REALLY do fail to get it, don't you? I can't be any more concise than I was ....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Paul talks of celibacy, Jesus did not. Paul taught women not to have sex with their husbands, Jesus did not.

Sorry, if you read Matthew 19, Jesus addresses both the topics of Marriage and Celebacy directly. As for Paul, you are blatantly mischaracterizing what he said about intermarital sex and celibacy. If you read closely in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, Paul is offering his own personal opinion on the topic, as he is a celibate man. He acknowledges in verses 3-6 that his opinion on sex in marriage was not tantamount to a commandment. He never commanded anyone to do anything. His words were merely suggestions.

With that being said, he was addressing questions being asked him of Corinthian saints who took extreme stances on sex. Also, he was not telling women to stop having sex with their husbands. Aside from the primary marital relationship with God, sex is an essential part of the marriage.

A segment of the Corinthians Paul was addressing held the view that women shouldn't have sex with their husbands. He himself never suggested that women do such a thing.

In verses 7-9 Paul says:

"For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

He acknowledges that passion cannot be totally restrained, thus, it is better to be married and in a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse (of opposite sex) than to be single and burn with lust.

That's strike one

Just because paul taught or spoke on it does not mean it was anything Jesus suggested to his followers or to Paul.

Wrong. In reality, Paul expanded on what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:11-12, in which Jesus said:

"The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Compare this to Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7, you will find a striking similarity between the two.

That's strike two

Paul did not like women, but Jesus and the early followers not only included women but were often lead by women.

That's not true. Jesus held women in high regard. He was never at any point in time lead by a woman, save his mother. Paul consistently employed women in leadership roles in the church as found in his letters.

"It is generally assumed that Paul is the author of a Christianity of female subordination. But more recent studies have shown that the historical Paul in fact continued most of the assumptions and practices of early charismatic, inclusive Christianity. Indeed, most of the New Testament evidence that women functioned as local leaders, as well as traveling evangelists, is to be found in the Pauline letters. Paul addresses almost an equal number of women along with men (sixteen women and eighteen men) in his greetings to Church leaders in Romans 16. He mentions two women, Euodia and Syntche, as having preached the gospel "with Barnabas and me" in Philippians 4:2-3. He addresses a woman name Junia by the title of "apostle," and constantly refers to the husband and wife team, Priscilla and Aquila, as "Church leaders," usually naming Priscilla first. He also speaks of the prominent woman Phoebe by the title of both "deacon" and "prostasis" or leader, of her community.

Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored."

-Rosemary Reuther Feminist Theologian, citing another Feminist theologian Elizabeth Fiorenza, Women in World Religions, Arvind Sharma (ed.), SUNY:1987, pp 212-213

In essence,

"He [Paul] was converted overnight from a legalistic, persecuting, pharisaic rabbi to a preacher of freedom in Christ, equality within the Body, of universal giftedness of the Spirit, to mutual submission after the model of the "meekness and gentleness of Christ.

His actions showed that his understanding of male and female alike was informed by the radical position we have in Christ...His practice and his words alike encourage ALL to accept the 'yoke' of service to the Master Servant of All...He consistently 'stays after women' to learn and grow and use their gifts for His precious Lord... He instructs his disciples to make sure that they are taught and utilized in the Body...He praises them in his letters for their faithfulness and hard work and 'co-laboring' with him...

This man's vision of women was re-created by the grace of God...would that we see what he saw, and live as consistently."

http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

That's strike three. Aris.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should Paul be the 'authority' on Jesus or what Jesus meant in his teachings?

Because that's what God chose him to be.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why should Paul be the 'authority' on Jesus or what Jesus meant in his teachings?

Because that's what God chose him to be.

Not even close. Paul created a faith Jesus had nothing to do with.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It does not mean you should persecute others that you don't accept either.

We aren't persecuting anyone. We just don't want to be forced to be a part of their lifestyle. Is that too hard for you to understand?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It does not mean you should persecute others that you don't accept either.

We aren't persecuting anyone. We just don't want to be forced to be a part of their lifestyle. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Well the Christian lifestyle does annoy the shit out of me. Work on that eh?

 

[aris2chat]

Paul talks of celibacy, Jesus did not. Paul taught women not to have sex with their husbands, Jesus did not.

Sorry, if you read Matthew 19, Jesus addresses both the topics of Marriage and Celebacy directly. As for Paul, you are blatantly mischaracterizing what he said about intermarital sex and celibacy. If you read closely in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, Paul is offering his own personal opinion on the topic, as he is a celibate man. He acknowledges in verses 3-6 that his opinion on sex in marriage was not tantamount to a commandment. He never commanded anyone to do anything. His words were merely suggestions.

With that being said, he was addressing questions being asked him of Corinthian saints who took extreme stances on sex. Also, he was not telling women to stop having sex with their husbands. Aside from the primary marital relationship with God, sex is an essential part of the marriage.

A segment of the Corinthians Paul was addressing held the view that women shouldn't have sex with their husbands. He himself never suggested that women do such a thing.

In verses 7-9 Paul says:

"For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

He acknowledges that passion cannot be totally restrained, thus, it is better to be married and in a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse (of opposite sex) than to be single and burn with lust.

That's strike one

Just because paul taught or spoke on it does not mean it was anything Jesus suggested to his followers or to Paul.

Wrong. In reality, Paul expanded on what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:11-12, in which Jesus said:

"The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Compare this to Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7, you will find a striking similarity between the two.

That's strike two

Paul did not like women, but Jesus and the early followers not only included women but were often lead by women.

That's not true. Jesus held women in high regard. He was never at any point in time lead by a woman, save his mother. Paul consistently employed women in leadership roles in the church as found in his letters.

"It is generally assumed that Paul is the author of a Christianity of female subordination. But more recent studies have shown that the historical Paul in fact continued most of the assumptions and practices of early charismatic, inclusive Christianity. Indeed, most of the New Testament evidence that women functioned as local leaders, as well as traveling evangelists, is to be found in the Pauline letters. Paul addresses almost an equal number of women along with men (sixteen women and eighteen men) in his greetings to Church leaders in Romans 16. He mentions two women, Euodia and Syntche, as having preached the gospel "with Barnabas and me" in Philippians 4:2-3. He addresses a woman name Junia by the title of "apostle," and constantly refers to the husband and wife team, Priscilla and Aquila, as "Church leaders," usually naming Priscilla first. He also speaks of the prominent woman Phoebe by the title of both "deacon" and "prostasis" or leader, of her community.

Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored."

-Rosemary Reuther Feminist Theologian, citing another Feminist theologian Elizabeth Fiorenza, Women in World Religions, Arvind Sharma (ed.), SUNY:1987, pp 212-213

In essence,

"He [Paul] was converted overnight from a legalistic, persecuting, pharisaic rabbi to a preacher of freedom in Christ, equality within the Body, of universal giftedness of the Spirit, to mutual submission after the model of the "meekness and gentleness of Christ.

His actions showed that his understanding of male and female alike was informed by the radical position we have in Christ...His practice and his words alike encourage ALL to accept the 'yoke' of service to the Master Servant of All...He consistently 'stays after women' to learn and grow and use their gifts for His precious Lord... He instructs his disciples to make sure that they are taught and utilized in the Body...He praises them in his letters for their faithfulness and hard work and 'co-laboring' with him...

This man's vision of women was re-created by the grace of God...would that we see what he saw, and live as consistently."

http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

That's strike three. Aris.

If sex and procreation are not an integral part of marriage, why have marriage at all? Why not allow gays to marry? If it is not about sex in order to reproduce and raise children, why such concern about gays? Why should they not be allowed them to marry if they are willing to adopt and raise children, to be family? There are no restrictions to men sharing an apartment or against them being traveling companions, what about being companions in the journey of life? Partners in work have contracts to protect time and give them certain right, much like a marriage does. Partner in life should be able to have the same rights. Partners in raising children should be able to have the same rights legally for share custody, medical rights and access, right to make decisions on life and health insurance, right to property and wealth, rights to make decision as a family.
If not sex and children, then why marriage? For many gays it is part of sex and children that they want the rights of marriage. For them there is no difference than for a heterosexual couple. Just because they cannot carry and give birth does not mean a family cannot be a family. It does not mean gays cannot be a family.

Sex is part of what bonds a couple together and children are part of what gives them a vested interest in being family and committed to working together for the rest of their days. It should no matter if they are heterosexual or gay. Biology should not be a sin. Biology is what makes someone homosexual. Why should that be a sin? A sin is something we have a choice in doing. Being gay is not a choice. For them pretending not being gay is the lie, it is the sin.

Equality in the body? 'Giftedness' of spirit? Gentleness of Jesus? Understanding of male and female, but what of those that fall in the cracks, what of understanding them as well be they homosexual, hermaphrodite, transgender or celibate?

God did not create mindless slaves to serve him, he created us with the ability think and feel, to love others, to make mistakes and to learn what is right. We do not serve a master, we are equals and should be equal in god and man's laws no matter our differences. God create homosexuality, so why should they be any less equal or subject to more condemnation for being themselves than anyone else?

I don't see much grace in creating homosexuals and telling them don't look, don't touch, don't love, don't desire the rights and freedoms of other people. Creating them with not hope in life or death but suffering, persecution, sin and hell. This is what you believe god is or should be? That is not a god, that is a devil.

I don't read the bible as cruel, bitter, unreasonable, merciless, vengeful, or hateful. I read hope, equality, love, brotherhood, tolerance and forgiveness. In any language or considering differences over time, I don't read the bible or any good book and see only the harsh punishment, condemnation and unbending letter of law without exception. Jesus did not expect all sinners to be punished or killed according to the OT but to use reason, to not blame others as sinner if you are at any time in your life no matter how minor a sinner. Remember about not casting stones at others? You are casting stones without being fair or understand the person or the 'sin'. You are telling the world you are the judge and jury, acting as god in this life and the next. Sorry but you are not god, at least no deserving my my consideration of such a title, position or authority. Go judge cock fights or killer wasps. You are not qualified to judge people.
Mosquitoes might be a mistake by god, IMHO, but homosexuals are not. Your attitude might be a mistake but wanting to be a partner for life or married to the person you are in love with is not.

Back when the bible was written, love was not a requirement to marriage. We don't marry for politics or as a bond to business contract between families. We don't trade and sell our daughter to cement peace agreements between kingdoms or prevent wars. Wives are no longer property but individuals with hearts and mind. Love is not something forbidden but something to be praised. Women and wives are not slaves but the equals of men in the home, business and the law.

Other aspects of the bible have evolved since 1000 bce. The church has changed it stand on many issues over time. Gay are allowed not just to services but even to communion with the new pope. Priest used to be allowed to marry, popes not only had sex but raised their children in the vatican in the past. Some were even gay and one might have actually been a women. A pope wrote a treatise on how to for abortion and birth control, but today some believe those a sin. The world, humans, laws and religion are not static but ever adapting and changing to the time and circumstance. What was is not always what much be today. We don't stone people for wearing different materials in clothing. We don't execute people for fornication or sex outside of marriage, at least not in christianity. We don't stone people for steal a goat. We don't burn people alive for not being the right religion or for being different in some way, again not in christianity. We don't commit genocide in the name of god, again not in christianity or the western world. We don't force people to believe in any particular faith upon pain of death in the west. Men are not subject to circumcision as a newborn or required to abide by kashrut laws for food, though perhaps in would not be a bad idea if more people tired to apply some of those rules for health benefits.

Not everything that was a sin is viewed as a sin today, be it a little or big sin. Not all are punished the way they were in the past, or even punished by the community or church as they once were. Not everything that was once written, interpreted or translated as a sin in the past is a sin today.

Not everything in one religion or sect that is a sin is a sin for all the others. The US is not supposed to be promoting any particular religion or impose that faith on everyone else in the country or world. 37 states now permit gay marriage in the law. Your beliefs should not be imposed as state or religious law for the country regarding gays being sinful or wanting equal rights. Thank goodness you do not control the laws or morals for the country, so you should not dictate what is a sin or who is sinful or threaten people with being condemned to hell.

Live the way you want but don't harm others. Your imposition of morals and laws is hurtful to others. Live your life but stay out of the lives, bedroom and homes of everyone else.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It should no matter if they are heterosexual or gay.

It should matter. This might sound a bit cliche, but if God wanted children to have same sex parents, he would have made two men or two women in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality defies the natural order God set in place when he created mankind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Live the way you want but don't harm others. Your imposition of morals and laws is hurtful to others. Live your life but stay out of the lives, bedroom and homes of everyone else.

Of course. But you can start by practicing what you preach miss. Stay out of my religious life, stop imposing your morals on me, and let me practice my faith in whatever venue I please, how I please.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should they not be allowed them to marry if they are willing to adopt and raise children, to be family?

Because it defies the natural order God set in motion when he created mankind. I'm not saying they can't raise children or get married, but it isn't the will of God.

By the way, how many times must I make clear that I am not stopping them from marrying.

 

[aris2chat]

Why should Paul be the 'authority' on Jesus or what Jesus meant in his teachings?

Because that's what God chose him to be.

So he said. Where are the witnesses that heard Jesus speak to him or saw his blindness till he converted, or accepted jesus? Jesus has witness to his life and death, but paul had no witnesses to his encounter with jesus. Even the other apostles did not approve of Paul or his ministry. He was confronted by them on a number of occasions.

Paul might have been blessed with a change of heart regarding christistians or jewish followers of Jesus, but he was not given the keys to the church or a mandate to do his own thing as far as preaching about what was and was not the intent of Jesus or the rules of the faith. He was not the final or only word of god or Jesus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where are the witnesses that heard Jesus speak to him or saw his blindness till he converted, or accepted jesus? Jesus has witness to his life and death, but paul had no witnesses to his encounter with jesus.

"1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 9:1-7

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even the other apostles did not approve of Paul or his ministry.

Paul didn't get his authority from the disciples, but from Jesus himself. Know the difference.

The apostles welcomed him with open arms. Read Galatians 2. All of it.

Galatians 2 - Paul Accepted by the Apostles - Then - Bible Gateway

 

[aris2chat]

Live the way you want but don't harm others. Your imposition of morals and laws is hurtful to others. Live your life but stay out of the lives, bedroom and homes of everyone else.

Of course. But you can start by practicing what you preach miss. Stay out of my religious life, stop imposing your morals on me, and let me practice my faith in whatever venue I please, how I please.

You don't have to become a homosexual, but don't call homosexual a sin or threat homosexuals with hell. If the law permits homosexuals to marry and raise children, it is not up to you to say no, just to say no to yourself.

Making a cake or taking photographs is not promoting homosexuality to the world. It is not forcing anyone to engage in homosexual behavior, it is just doing your job. You are not the one getting married, you are just the one making the cake or flowers, to catering, etc.

If you don't agree with gays as a couple with equal rights, don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't tell others they can't get married. You have the right to disagree, but you do not have the right to spread hate or create problems for those who do believe gays have rights to be a family. You don't have the right to call people sinners or threaten them. You do not have the right to preach hate.

You can believe but free speech has it's limits. Free speech in not free, it comes with responsibilities and should not be abused. It should be used with care and common sense. It should not be used as weapon or used to libel or defame others with lies. You should not turn a difference of opinions into hate or violence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't have to become a homosexual, but don't call homosexual a sin or threat homosexuals with hell.

I'll say and believe what I wish. You can't tell me what to do.

f the law permits homosexuals to marry and raise children, it is not up to you to say no, just to say no to yourself.

Oh, I get the difference. But never have I suggested imposing my will on others through the law. Not once. But people like you have problems with people who say "no."

 

[NYcarbineer]

It should no matter if they are heterosexual or gay.

It should matter. This might sound a bit cliche, but if God wanted children to have same sex parents, he would have made two men or two women in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality defies the natural order God set in place when he created mankind.

Genesis is mythology made up by Men.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Live the way you want but don't harm others. Your imposition of morals and laws is hurtful to others. Live your life but stay out of the lives, bedroom and homes of everyone else.

Of course. But you can start by practicing what you preach miss. Stay out of my religious life, stop imposing your morals on me, and let me practice my faith in whatever venue I please, how I please.

You want live your life under your own set of laws. You can't do that in the US. We have laws already.