stop comparing gay marriage and acceptance to race, only gay stuff is documented as wrong

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.


As a fellow Christian, I find this offensive. Jesus dined with prostitutes and thieves. Do you really think he'd have a problem with you baking a cake for a gay couple? You REALLY need to read the red words in your Bible and think about how you can live your life in the spirit of Jesus.

I am so incredibly sick and tired of this perception that we are all like op and this pp. We are not. I go to an Episcopal church. Our congregation consists of gay couples and mixed race couples. Nobody even thinks twice about it. we also welcome the homeless man who sometimes joins us. We don't question why he has Nike shoes (newsflash: a REAL Christian probably gave him those shoes as a *gasp* handout!). Oh, and we tell our kids that of course they can pray in school any time they want...SILENTLY! We believe that it's our responsibility to teach others about our faith...but not through laws and politics. We do so by inviting people to our service, or to Vacation Bible School, or any other church function.



You need to go back and read your scriptures some more.

Jesus told the adulteress to GO AND SIN NO MORE ( John 8:11). He did not say prostitution, adultery, thieving were OK. I've been seeing these idiotic posters on the internet (and perhaps they are hanging them in your church) that suggest that Jesus dining with prostitutes is an acceptance of prostitution. Again, read John 8:11 -- it's really not that obtuse, you'll get it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us specifically to be kind to gay people. However, gay sex is a sin. This is why Pope Francis has been accepting of the idea of celibate gays within the priesthood.

I treat all people with respect including gays, who I generally like and get along with very well.





Preparing and celebrating a meal with a prostitute might not be the same thing as packing a goodie bag for her to help her next trick go more smoothly. There are many areas of life where you could make a distinction between "loving the person" yet draw the line at participating in their sinful behavior. You can help a homeless pedophile with food, clothing and shelter, but you wouldn't make a cake for him to share with the child he was lusting after. You welcome your drug addicted (child, neighbor, relative) into your home and care for them, but you don't provide their pipe for them.

My parents always welcomed me and my boyfriend into their home, and even sent us all appropriate gifts. But, they refused to buy us furniture or even help us move into our apartment. My brother refused to read at my sisters wedding, because he disapproved that she had been living with her boyfriend before they got married. I thought It was a dick move, but he was following his own moral and religious code. There are fine lines and nuances in life which make all the difference. The government should refrain from interfering in those personal judgement calls unless there is a very compelling reason and there is no other way to achieve a given goal......sort of like these RFRAs state.


I did not say that Jesus said it was OK! Good grief! But did he not forgive them? Didn't Jesus tell us that it's not our place to judge?

I cannot even believe pp is implying that baking a cake is like giving drugs to a druggie, or helping a pedophile find his next victim. You disgust me, pp.

If you are a wedding vendor with any religious and/or moral views whatsoever, I guarantee you have served many couples who participate in behavior that you view as immoral/sinful. So, what's next? Will they get to refuse service to interracial couples? Previously married couples? Living in sin? Pregnant bride? non-virgins? You could use your Bible to make a case against each of these. Yet, nearly every couple I know falls into at least one of these categories. So how is not hypocritical to refuse gays but not the others?

Honestly, a part of me hopes these anti-gay laws pass in every state. It will weed out the intolerant, the haters, the false Christians. It will put them out of business. the vast majority of millennials will not tolerate this sort of hatred, and I think we will see bigots shunned by society more and more as more millennials come of age and the baby boomers die off. By the time they get through HS and college, just about every millennial will have multiple gay friends, biracial friends, etc. They won't accept haters. If you are raising your kid to be a bigot, you are setting him up to be an outcast. The world is changing. You would be wise to change with it and teach your children love and acceptance.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with gay folks; but I expect them to respect my right to live as a Christian.

That my friends is real tolerance.


As a fellow Christian, I find this offensive. Jesus dined with prostitutes and thieves. Do you really think he'd have a problem with you baking a cake for a gay couple? You REALLY need to read the red words in your Bible and think about how you can live your life in the spirit of Jesus.

I am so incredibly sick and tired of this perception that we are all like op and this pp. We are not. I go to an Episcopal church. Our congregation consists of gay couples and mixed race couples. Nobody even thinks twice about it. we also welcome the homeless man who sometimes joins us. We don't question why he has Nike shoes (newsflash: a REAL Christian probably gave him those shoes as a *gasp* handout!). Oh, and we tell our kids that of course they can pray in school any time they want...SILENTLY! We believe that it's our responsibility to teach others about our faith...but not through laws and politics. We do so by inviting people to our service, or to Vacation Bible School, or any other church function.



You need to go back and read your scriptures some more.

Jesus told the adulteress to GO AND SIN NO MORE ( John 8:11). He did not say prostitution, adultery, thieving were OK. I've been seeing these idiotic posters on the internet (and perhaps they are hanging them in your church) that suggest that Jesus dining with prostitutes is an acceptance of prostitution. Again, read John 8:11 -- it's really not that obtuse, you'll get it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us specifically to be kind to gay people. However, gay sex is a sin. This is why Pope Francis has been accepting of the idea of celibate gays within the priesthood.

I treat all people with respect including gays, who I generally like and get along with very well.





Preparing and celebrating a meal with a prostitute might not be the same thing as packing a goodie bag for her to help her next trick go more smoothly. There are many areas of life where you could make a distinction between "loving the person" yet draw the line at participating in their sinful behavior. You can help a homeless pedophile with food, clothing and shelter, but you wouldn't make a cake for him to share with the child he was lusting after. You welcome your drug addicted (child, neighbor, relative) into your home and care for them, but you don't provide their pipe for them.

My parents always welcomed me and my boyfriend into their home, and even sent us all appropriate gifts. But, they refused to buy us furniture or even help us move into our apartment. My brother refused to read at my sisters wedding, because he disapproved that she had been living with her boyfriend before they got married. I thought It was a dick move, but he was following his own moral and religious code. There are fine lines and nuances in life which make all the difference. The government should refrain from interfering in those personal judgement calls unless there is a very compelling reason and there is no other way to achieve a given goal......sort of like these RFRAs state.


I did not say that Jesus said it was OK! Good grief! But did he not forgive them? Didn't Jesus tell us that it's not our place to judge?

I cannot even believe pp is implying that baking a cake is like giving drugs to a druggie, or helping a pedophile find his next victim. You disgust me, pp.

If you are a wedding vendor with any religious and/or moral views whatsoever, I guarantee you have served many couples who participate in behavior that you view as immoral/sinful. So, what's next? Will they get to refuse service to interracial couples? Previously married couples? Living in sin? Pregnant bride? non-virgins? You could use your Bible to make a case against each of these. Yet, nearly every couple I know falls into at least one of these categories. So how is not hypocritical to refuse gays but not the others?

Honestly, a part of me hopes these anti-gay laws pass in every state. It will weed out the intolerant, the haters, the false Christians. It will put them out of business. the vast majority of millennials will not tolerate this sort of hatred, and I think we will see bigots shunned by society more and more as more millennials come of age and the baby boomers die off. By the time they get through HS and college, just about every millennial will have multiple gay friends, biracial friends, etc. They won't accept haters. If you are raising your kid to be a bigot, you are setting him up to be an outcast. The world is changing. You would be wise to change with it and teach your children love and acceptance.


Anonymous
The anti-gay laws are just teeing up the court case that SCOTUS will be forced to settle. Guaranteed, some numbskull conservative is going to deny a gay couple room at a hotel, or a seat at a restaurant. All it takes is one test case to slam the door shut on this bigotry.

Then they will be crying, just like they did on marriage. They had a chance to avoid gay marriage. And they flushed that chance down the toilet by failing to make civil commitment equal under the law, by prohibiting gay adoption, by not giving equal rights under Federal law, by all the stupid battles over inheritance and benefits and everything else that comes with legal marriage.

They blew it and now they pretend that they are "fine" with gays but not with "changing the definition of marriage". Too little, too late.

These laws will end up making gays a protected class, and you'll whine about that. Just remember here and now that it was the conservative politicians who pushed things too far, pandering to right wing voters and their interest groups.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The anti-gay laws are just teeing up the court case that SCOTUS will be forced to settle. Guaranteed, some numbskull conservative is going to deny a gay couple room at a hotel, or a seat at a restaurant. All it takes is one test case to slam the door shut on this bigotry.

Then they will be crying, just like they did on marriage. They had a chance to avoid gay marriage. And they flushed that chance down the toilet by failing to make civil commitment equal under the law, by prohibiting gay adoption, by not giving equal rights under Federal law, by all the stupid battles over inheritance and benefits and everything else that comes with legal marriage.

They blew it and now they pretend that they are "fine" with gays but not with "changing the definition of marriage". Too little, too late.

These laws will end up making gays a protected class, and you'll whine about that. Just remember here and now that it was the conservative politicians who pushed things too far, pandering to right wing voters and their interest groups.



Pushed things? What are you talking about? The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy! This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Anonymous wrote:

Pushed things? What are you talking about? The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy! This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.


Just as in the earlier discussion of this topic, you appear to think that the only culture in existence is Western Anglo Saxon culture. The idea that the only traditional definition of marriage is one man and one woman is very provincial. It demonstrates a lack of awareness of both history and non-Western cultures.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
MikeL
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You beat me to it!
The country will be better off without people that ilk.
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Pushed things? What are you talking about? The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy! This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.


Just as in the earlier discussion of this topic, you appear to think that the only culture in existence is Western Anglo Saxon culture. The idea that the only traditional definition of marriage is one man and one woman is very provincial. It demonstrates a lack of awareness of both history and non-Western cultures.


This is a laugha-thon. This country is a Christian nation, built largely by anglo saxons. Most of the great things about American come from this heritage. If you want to live according to some tribal notion of men doing whatever in Papua New Guinea, you should expect ultimately to live that way.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The anti-gay laws are just teeing up the court case that SCOTUS will be forced to settle. Guaranteed, some numbskull conservative is going to deny a gay couple room at a hotel, or a seat at a restaurant. All it takes is one test case to slam the door shut on this bigotry.

Then they will be crying, just like they did on marriage. They had a chance to avoid gay marriage. And they flushed that chance down the toilet by failing to make civil commitment equal under the law, by prohibiting gay adoption, by not giving equal rights under Federal law, by all the stupid battles over inheritance and benefits and everything else that comes with legal marriage.

They blew it and now they pretend that they are "fine" with gays but not with "changing the definition of marriage". Too little, too late.

These laws will end up making gays a protected class, and you'll whine about that. Just remember here and now that it was the conservative politicians who pushed things too far, pandering to right wing voters and their interest groups.



Pushed things? What are you talking about? The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy! This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.


Where are you going to go?
Anonymous
I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.


Just as Mr. Jefferson intended.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:This country is a Christian nation


'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'
1st Amendment
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The anti-gay laws are just teeing up the court case that SCOTUS will be forced to settle. Guaranteed, some numbskull conservative is going to deny a gay couple room at a hotel, or a seat at a restaurant. All it takes is one test case to slam the door shut on this bigotry.

Then they will be crying, just like they did on marriage. They had a chance to avoid gay marriage. And they flushed that chance down the toilet by failing to make civil commitment equal under the law, by prohibiting gay adoption, by not giving equal rights under Federal law, by all the stupid battles over inheritance and benefits and everything else that comes with legal marriage.

They blew it and now they pretend that they are "fine" with gays but not with "changing the definition of marriage". Too little, too late.

These laws will end up making gays a protected class, and you'll whine about that. Just remember here and now that it was the conservative politicians who pushed things too far, pandering to right wing voters and their interest groups.



Pushed things? What are you talking about? The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy! This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.


Where are you going to go?


Croatia.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This country is a Christian nation


'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'
1st Amendment


You think lefties read (or respect) the Constitution?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The anti-gay laws are just teeing up the court case that SCOTUS will be forced to settle. Guaranteed, some numbskull conservative is going to deny a gay couple room at a hotel, or a seat at a restaurant. All it takes is one test case to slam the door shut on this bigotry.

Then they will be crying, just like they did on marriage. They had a chance to avoid gay marriage. And they flushed that chance down the toilet by failing to make civil commitment equal under the law, by prohibiting gay adoption, by not giving equal rights under Federal law, by all the stupid battles over inheritance and benefits and everything else that comes with legal marriage.

They blew it and now they pretend that they are "fine" with gays but not with "changing the definition of marriage". Too little, too late.

These laws will end up making gays a protected class, and you'll whine about that. Just remember here and now that it was the conservative politicians who pushed things too far, pandering to right wing voters and their interest groups.



Pushed things? What are you talking about? The only precedent for gay marriage cited on this board was polygamy! This was no new regime imposed by Christians -- you overturned the definition of marriage that has predated Christendom.

I honestly don't care what folks do anymore, I am planning to leave this Country as it long ago left God.


Where are you going to go?


Croatia.


HAHAHA well let me tell you, as someone who lived there for 21 years:

1) Croatians are a lot more liberal than Americans. They'd probably never pass a law like this.

2) They were Communist for 50 years and really don't give a rats ass about Christianity.

But, hey, they'll probably have a hay day with you. Be my guest.
Anonymous
Ahahahaha Croatia! That is just too rich.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: