Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not the place to determine if Christianity prohibits homosexuality or allows discrimination of homosexuals. Thats a religious issue.

However, if someone cites the Bible as a basis for believing that a same-sex marriage is against their religious beliefs and therefore refuses to "participate" in it by baking a cake or whatever, but has no problem baking a cake for interfaith weddings or weddings where one spouse was previously married, etc., then I find it difficult to believe that their motivation is truly their religious beliefs.

Religious, schmeligious. Cite for me where EXACTLY it says in the Bible that a Christian should not do business with someone with different views.

If you can't give me an exact citation then you have no religious grounds to stand on.

Does the Bible prohibit marriage between two men? Or say that marriage is between a man and woman? If so, then it follows that baking cakes or delivering pizza for marriages forbidden in the faith would be wrong.

Or one could just go on and keep extrapolating and try to suggest that the mere mention of two men is against Christianity. Where does it end?



How about it ends with what JESUS ACTUALLY SAYS as opposed to extrapolating it out to the nth degree. And what Jesus *actually* said in the Bible about homosexuality was " "

He said NOTHING.

But what did Jesus say about marriage? Did he say marriage was between a man and a woman? Then homosexual relationships go against this.

He did not say that homosexual marriage is wrong.
However in that bible verse, he did say that divorce = adultery. Unequivocally. So I wonder whether they refuse to cater remarriages.

Jesus doesn't have to say homosexuality was wrong. If he stated what marriage was - between a man and a woman, the corollary of that is that any other union is wrong. Did Jesus also say unions between men and animals is wrong? How about unions between men and children? No, he didn't, but that doesn't mean it's right.

The bible refers frequently to "man" and we assume it means "man or woman". I don't think you can hang his view on homosexuality based on the fact that he referred to the dominant type of relationship. In any case, that was the chapter that he condemned divorce as adultery. That, he was really specific about. Know anyone who remarried?[/quote
]

Yes, sometimes the Bible refers to "man" figuratively and they mean mankind. But when the Bible clearly refers to marriage unions as between "men AND women" there should be no mistaking who the Bible is referring to. It's not figurative; it's intended to be a literal reading.

Secondly, just because people abuse the adultery rule does not nullify Jesus' position on homosexuality.

In Mt 19 Jesus was referring to divorce, and since gays did not marry at the time, they were not to be lectured about divorce. He did not say that gays could not marry. Jesus did not take a position on that.

[Anonymous]

PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

St. Paul said a lot of things that conservative americans would not actually practice. But his words are not the words of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

So it's ok for hetero couples to have anal sex?

And for you the only way to express love is through sex?

I think your "common sense" comments say a lot more about you and the way you think than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

So if a heterosexual couple happens to prefer any number of potential sexual positions that you do not like, or find unpleasant or even disgusting, are they allowed to engage in their intimate activities the way they would prefer or must they defer to your standards?

Are couples only allowed to marry if they are going to have sex in some 'approved' way? Who has the list? Quick I need to check it before DH gets home! See, that doesn't make much sense, does it?

Any kind of consensual sex between adults is perfectly fine... it's only the business of the people engaging in it. No one is/should be/has any right to be asking you to see or experience anal sex, or any other kind of sex you don't want, so why would you get to decide what kind of sex other people can have?

The only thing that society as a whole should get to judge as objectively wrong is something that harms another person or violates their consent and rights. Everything else should be a matter of personal freedom -- especially in America of all places!

Using your body in any way that feels good seems pretty natural to me, and as long as it's not hurting someone else I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be 'impure' or 'unwholesome'.

Let's say hypothetically you are in a heterosexual marriage, and I find your and your partner's favorite sexual act disgusting or awful in some way. Would you want me telling you you can't do that and it invalidates your relationship? Probably not, and unless you're forcing me to participate in it I would have no right to do so and would never think to attempt it.

(FWIW, I am personally also a bit grossed out by the idea of anal sex, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to engage in it with the consent of their partners. I don't enjoy tennis either, but someone does and there's nothing wrong with that.)

[Anonymous]

I lost track of this thread many pages back, before the discussion turned to whatever the Bible says. Here's my question though:

No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say about certain practices, does it really make sense for the United States to pull its modern laws out of a few random passages in a religious book written 2000-3000 years ago in another part of the world???

I get that some people say the United States was formed by (largely) Christian men, so those beliefs helped provide a context for some of the laws they created for the United States. But none of those foundation laws say the United States will pull its laws from the religious texts -- indeed, they seem to say quite the opposite! So the idea that the Bible has passages criticizing homosexuality seems irrelevant to this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

So it's ok for hetero couples to have anal sex?

And for you the only way to express love is through sex?

I think your "common sense" comments say a lot more about you and the way you think than anyone else.

Show me where I said its okay for hetero couples to have anal sex. Think. Just think before you write. I also never said sex is the only way to show love. I said anal sex, which we all know is what homosexuals generally engage in, is not only gross but obviously unnatural and prohibited by the Bible.


Show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting....

You almost described a blow job from a woman's point of view. Do you ever get those?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lost track of this thread many pages back, before the discussion turned to whatever the Bible says. Here's my question though:

No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say about certain practices, does it really make sense for the United States to pull its modern laws out of a few random passages in a religious book written 2000-3000 years ago in another part of the world???

I get that some people say the United States was formed by (largely) Christian men, so those beliefs helped provide a context for some of the laws they created for the United States. But none of those foundation laws say the United States will pull its laws from the religious texts -- indeed, they seem to say quite the opposite! So the idea that the Bible has passages criticizing homosexuality seems irrelevant to this discussion.

The laws of the US ARE largely similar to those of many great faiths: thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, etc...but it permits religious freedom, regardless of how old that religion is and whether it seems strange in todays times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

So if a heterosexual couple happens to prefer any number of potential sexual positions that you do not like, or find unpleasant or even disgusting, are they allowed to engage in their intimate activities the way they would prefer or must they defer to your standards?

Are couples only allowed to marry if they are going to have sex in some 'approved' way? Who has the list? Quick I need to check it before DH gets home! See, that doesn't make much sense, does it?

Any kind of consensual sex between adults is perfectly fine... it's only the business of the people engaging in it. No one is/should be/has any right to be asking you to see or experience anal sex, or any other kind of sex you don't want, so why would you get to decide what kind of sex other people can have?

The only thing that society as a whole should get to judge as objectively wrong is something that harms another person or violates their consent and rights. Everything else should be a matter of personal freedom -- especially in America of all places!

Using your body in any way that feels good seems pretty natural to me, and as long as it's not hurting someone else I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be 'impure' or 'unwholesome'.

Let's say hypothetically you are in a heterosexual marriage, and I find your and your partner's favorite sexual act disgusting or awful in some way. Would you want me telling you you can't do that and it invalidates your relationship? Probably not, and unless you're forcing me to participate in it I would have no right to do so and would never think to attempt it.

(FWIW, I am personally also a bit grossed out by the idea of anal sex, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to engage in it with the consent of their partners. I don't enjoy tennis either, but someone does and there's nothing wrong with that.)

We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.

I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lost track of this thread many pages back, before the discussion turned to whatever the Bible says. Here's my question though:

No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say about certain practices, does it really make sense for the United States to pull its modern laws out of a few random passages in a religious book written 2000-3000 years ago in another part of the world???

I get that some people say the United States was formed by (largely) Christian men, so those beliefs helped provide a context for some of the laws they created for the United States. But none of those foundation laws say the United States will pull its laws from the religious texts -- indeed, they seem to say quite the opposite! So the idea that the Bible has passages criticizing homosexuality seems irrelevant to this discussion.

The laws of the US ARE largely similar to those of many great faiths: thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, etc...but it permits religious freedom, regardless of how old that religion is and whether it seems strange in todays times.

"Permitting religious freedom" does not equal "basing laws of the country on the laws of one religion."

And outlying stealing and killing is a good idea for government and society at large whether it's based on the Ten Commandments or not. Notice there are no US or state laws against taking the Lord's name in vain.

[Anonymous]

Outlying should be outlawing, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.

I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs?

I'm pretty sure that lesbians don't predominantly show affection via anal sex. At least not without the use of toys and foreign objects. Plus, gay men show affection by hugging, kissing, holding hands, giving Hallmark cards, and simply saying "I love you".

The point is that "disgusting and unnatural sexual acts" are performed by straight couples as well. Unless you want to strictly enforce sodomy laws on every straight person (especially if they're not married) then you cannot strictly enforce sodomy laws on gay men and women. That's pretty much the ENTIRE point of this conversation- it is illegal to enforce a law for one person and not for another.

I'll give my opinion here- I find it utterly disgusting and unnatural to go give 10% of my income to a global non-profit that protected hundreds of pedophiles and child molesters yet that's what millions of Catholics do every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lost track of this thread many pages back, before the discussion turned to whatever the Bible says. Here's my question though:

No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say about certain practices, does it really make sense for the United States to pull its modern laws out of a few random passages in a religious book written 2000-3000 years ago in another part of the world???

I get that some people say the United States was formed by (largely) Christian men, so those beliefs helped provide a context for some of the laws they created for the United States. But none of those foundation laws say the United States will pull its laws from the religious texts -- indeed, they seem to say quite the opposite! So the idea that the Bible has passages criticizing homosexuality seems irrelevant to this discussion.

The laws of the US ARE largely similar to those of many great faiths: thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, etc...but it permits religious freedom, regardless of how old that religion is and whether it seems strange in todays times.

"Permitting religious freedom" does not equal "basing laws of the country on the laws of one religion."


I can discriminate homosexuals and lesbians based on this country's freedom of religion clause and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. So yes, permitting religious freedom does = laws of this country in some instances.

And outlying stealing and killing is a good idea for government and society at large whether it's based on the Ten Commandments or not. Notice there are no US or state laws against taking the Lord's name in vain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.

I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs?

I'm pretty sure that lesbians don't predominantly show affection via anal sex. At least not without the use of toys and foreign objects. Plus, gay men show affection by hugging, kissing, holding hands, giving Hallmark cards, and simply saying "I love you".

The point is that "disgusting and unnatural sexual acts" are performed by straight couples as well. Unless you want to strictly enforce sodomy laws on every straight person (especially if they're not married) then you cannot strictly enforce sodomy laws on gay men and women. That's pretty much the ENTIRE point of this conversation- it is illegal to enforce a law for one person and not for another.

I'll give my opinion here- I find it utterly disgusting and unnatural to go give 10% of my income to a global non-profit that protected hundreds of pedophiles and child molesters yet that's what millions of Catholics do every year.

are you daft? I said the laws of this country DO permit discrimination of homosexuals in some instances because Christianity does prohibit homosexuality. Thats the subject here. This has already been established by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Boy Scouts of America case. Go back and read that case.

Whether anal sex is enjoyed by homosexuals but disgusting and unnatural was a side opinion of mine.

Distinguish the two, please.