No Christian persecution in the US? Try telling that to these Christians.

I still have 35 pages of this thread to read, but I can tell you that your anti-religious bigotry is disturbing, and I'm an atheist. If you can't tell the difference between Christianity and Islam, you're not paying attention. As for homosexuality, it's curious, there's the freedom of religion right there in the 1st Amendment and yet nowhere in the Constitution is the freedom to take a dick up your ass even mentioned. And yet somehow the latter "right" trumps the former. Odd.

 

LOL. But he's doing such a good job!

 

Define "moral" without invoking God, popular opinion, or liberal elite opinion.

 

Anti-religion is typically push back from religious rule. You can only tell people for so long that they have to succumb to whatever you can twist a holy book before it installs some hostility.

Christianity in third world nations is very similar to Islam, you are confusing comparing first world Christianity to third world Islam.

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Im not sure where you people have decided that the wants of people claiming religious affiliation override the personal liberties of others. I'm also not sure how other people being allowed to live as they see fit within the confines of legal principal enfringes on your ability to choose change or reject religion.

AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As a strict reading of the constitution, one is prohibited by congress and the other is prohibited by any state, read it how you wish.

There is middle ground here, unfortunately neither side is willing to even attempt to come to amenable terms - some religious individuals what all rights and freedoms removed form homosexuals while some homosexuals want everyone to approve of their relationships.

Also, The order of the amendments do not dictate importance of the rights as prescribed.

Both are lazy arguments - feel free to try again

 

Nothing like it and the doctrine of Islam found in the Koran and hadiths is the same in the first and 3rd world countries.

 

By "personal Liberty" you mean the liberty to have government force someone else to sell you something they don't want to sell you, and fine them 100s of 1000s of dollars if they don't. The left has a strange concept of "liberty"

 

Seems to be the norm for secular humanists.

 

Who says they got it wrong? You can argue it out with them when you meet them..
Jesus said:-"at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' So they are no longer two, but one." (Matt 19:4)

 

The "other", "the freedom to take a dick up your ass" isn't in the constitution. Neither is the freedom to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to you. Only freedom of religion is in the Constitution.

 

Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.


Romans 10
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Galatians 3 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

 

Sex is a form of Expression protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

The problem with this argument is how the parties have changed over the years. Lincoln would be ashamed of what the Republicans have become today, heck even Reagan would be ashamed of the direction it's taken.

Back in the Jim Crow days the KKK cheered for Democrats, those same forces today eschew the Democrats in favor of the Republicans. You are trying to apply something that doesn't exist.

And if you get right down to it, neither party can 100% claim ownership of protecting people's freedoms, because both sides have their internal goals that would take away freedoms in certain areas.

 

hello, please show me where in the USA that people have been stoned to death for having gay-sex?

Please show me where in the USA that anyone is denied from having them some gay-sex?

Then, simply look to the OP and you'll see just a few examples of punishment for people being Christian.

Please show me where the govt be it state or fed has denied you from having gay-sex? There isn't one case.

The OP has several where a Christian must suspend their Constitutionally protected rights and celebrate the gay lifestyle.

- - - Updated - - -

ahh, the talking point nonsense

as a Democrat (liberal) you need to own the rich history of oppression as well as current times of the Democrat party. The GOP has a rich history of preserving and protecting the Constitution.

You wanna discuss your statement of Lincoln? Do you think Lincoln would be for or against the killing of babies within the womb?

Yup, your party owns that too

 

the new SCOTUS will bring us back to Constitutional sanity.

 

Don't worry, the SCOTUS will return back to sanity and view gay-sex for what it is. Nobody wishes to deny you from engaging in gay-sex but you wish to force Christians into participating in the celebration of your chosen sex life. If you started the "church of gay sex" , worshiped leather, and one of the tenets was that heterosexual-sex was a sin, I would support your right to not service a heterosexual wedding.

As someone who enjoys heterosexual-sex I would know that I could not be a member of "the church of gay-sex" much like those who engage in gay-sex are not Christian.

You cannot change or eradicate Christianity which appears to be what you want.

 

Call it any way you like it, you also need to own the fact that the KKK and other white hate groups cheer for Republicans these days.

I'd hardly call Republicans total guardians of the constitution. They like the idea of God being stamped on our money and in the pledge when the constitution clearly states that no state religion shall be established for instance. And up to the 1950's God was not referenced in either.

And as far as abortion goes that should fall under religious views in my opinion because the debate is when does life really begin, as soon as the first cells start multiplying? Or as soon as the fetus is aware of it's surroundings? Does it have a soul? As an atheist I don't subscribe to that line of thought.

 

No case to ban same sex marriage will make it to SCOTUS. No one has standing. Feel free to bask in your fantasy though.

Demonstrably false

A cake is not a celebration. Nor is a hotel room. Nor is visiting a doctor.

And then the people screaming religious freedom to discriminate would be forced to serve gay people nationwide, that's the crux with the argument, one religion having freedom to do whatever they want infringes on other religions. The entire argument falls apart.

Good for you, adulterers and liars are also not Christians. Guess that strikes you out from both religions...

I want neither of these things, but don't mistake Christianity for whatever it is you practice.

 

Have you forgotten how so many deluded people loved traitor Bush?

 

There may be differences. But the base is the same. Same OT and same God.

 

Isn't it HILARIOUS how adulterers think they have a leg up on gay people? According to God, they should be in the same boat.
Yet the biggest whiners of all, are all the adulterers. And to top it off as you say, they have to lie to make their point. Biggest hypocrites in the world. Adultering, lying, christians.

 

All rights are not specifically outlined in the constitution, SCOTUS disagrees that the amendment XIV does not include "taking a dick up your ass" (you "Christians" are so very infatuated with this). I already posted the exact reading of amendment I, it specifically states congress, and no where does it give any religion the ability to impose their beliefs on another.

I do agreee that forcing someone to produce a good against their will is unconstitutional - but the religious folks would also lose their protections so it will never be argued in court.

Amendment XIII
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

 

Feel free to argue the XIII'th.
I gave you the only constitutional reason to deny service, seeking to deny service because of the misreading of a holy text isn't a viable or legal reasoning.

 

Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe all disagree.



"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Vs

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."
"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."


Those teachings seem eerily similar. As do most of the passages in each.

 

interesting

as sovereign nations they can have any laws they wish. In the example of laws against gay-sex, how does one know that someone engaged in gay sex?

Also, there has been outrage over the anal probing done to confirm if gay sex was in fact conducted. If the law exists and the people have not overthrown the govt or repealed the law, then there must be ways to confirm the law has been broken much like a DUI test.

One could make an argument about the health implications surrounding male/male gay sex and the disproportionate rate of HIV and other diseases among men who perform penile to anus sex. Beyond HIV there is also Hepatitis risk from the oral ingestion of fecal matter from the penis following aforementioned anal sex. Given that, it is understandable why sovereign nations would take a hard line stance against gay-sex given the health risks associated with engaging in it.

 

Not all gay men have anal sex
Not all homosexuals are promiscuous
Most homosexuals never contract HIV/AIDS

Using your methodology should nations bar black men from all intercourse - they are the largest vector, worldwide, by a significant margin when taking into account population size