Does it matter why people are gay?

I will repeat from a previous post:

To become a teacher at a Catholic school an employee typically has to sign a morality clause. This is a typical employment contract http://napcis.org/TeacherContract.doc


From the contract:

The TEACHER may be suspended or discharged for good cause as shall be determined in the
exclusive discretion of the Board of Trustees. It is specifically understood that good cause for
discharge shall include but not be limited to: inadequacy of teaching, misconduct, neglect of
duty, physical or mental incapacity, actions involving moral turpitude, violation of the terms of
this agreement or _____ Academy policy, or any conduct not in keeping with the Catholic Faith
or conduct tending to reflect discredit upon the school or tending to impair the TEACHER’S
usefulness in his capacity as a teacher.​

It is neither Catholic nor Christian doctrine to prevent people from interracial marriage.

But if there is a religion that prohibits interracial marriage, then that religion should be respected. The key aspect is that you are not required to obey that - or any - religion, and if you are not a part of that religion then its ban on interracial marriage has no impact on you.

 

Yet they do not fire divorced people. But answer my question.....can they fire some who marries outside of his race if they claim it violates their religion?

 

What evidence?

I never said anything about marriage. Further, the catholic church isn't against gay people. if it was, it would also be against Christ. He said all sinners are welcome.

 

No religious school in the country would be allowed to fire someone for an interracial marriage. Nor should they for a gay marriage. They currently allowed to but that is immoral and should be illegal

 

You don't think there are gays who oppose that crap? Blacks who oppose the abuses committed in their names? Be realistic. It's not an excuse to point out that people are getting worked up over loud minorities; it's a fact, just as it's a fact that there are plenty of reasonable, normal gays and plenty of reasonable, normal black people, same as there are plenty of reasonable, normal Christians.

The same dynamic can be found everywhere, say in feminism. You've got your nutcase cult leader types and their slavish devotees, and then you've got far more who are down to earth and reasonable. Deal with extremists directly rather than attacking whole spectrum-wide groups of people who you feel fall under a given label.

 

The number of times you re-use the same failed arguments should be recorded in the Guiness book of records.

there is no Federal law making necrophilia illegal, many state laws do make it illegal though usually not due to anything done to the corpse, most are public order offences, one or two are health & safety offences, in fact the main reason it is illegal at state level is due to the undue duress it places on surviving family members.

Except for the fact that homosexuality and necrophilia are not "life choices".

You have been provided numerous times with the evidence that homosexuality is a born trait, that you wilfully deny and ignore that says far more about your agenda than anything else.

There is no need to show your fascination with young girls we all get the idea, God knows you've shared your fantasy often enough.

 

I don't know the true details of your boss's situation, but from what little you have stated I have no sympathy for him. Many people find themselves in situations in which they have to choose between their peers or co-workers or boss, and what is right. Many people find themselves in situations much more serious than going to a strip club, or having to put up with bad jokes.

Your boss chose to stay in that environment (for 15 years), he knew he was going to be teased, it was essentially the price for working there and he knew it. He could have left immediately or stood up for himself immediately before he was so invested. But he did not, he sat there for 15 years.

It probably sounds harsh to you, but I have no sympathy for wimps particularly over such small things as bad jokes and strip bars.

A private business is private property, the owners invested their time and money and skills in creating the business, the owners are taking the risk, and they should be able to run their business in the manner they choose. If they do not want to serve gays, or Asians, or blacks, or Muslims, or Christians, or white people, or "progressives", then that's their right. Such a business could be taking a risk, it could lose customers, there is a financial penalty, the business might collapse, but its still the owners choice.

 

Both the Kentucky and federal religious restoration/protection acts gave her the legal standing for religious accommodation.

The Kentucky legislature immediately offered to change the forms but the Kentucky governor (Steve Beshear, Democrat, pro-gay) refused to authorize the special session. The change was made in the next legislative regular session. The issue was prolonged unnecessarily - although in my opinion it was prolonged because the gay activists wanted to drive a lesson home and put Davis in jail.

 

Amen brother

it is the absolute truth and to hear homosexuals claim to be Christians or to say "they know Christians who support gay marriage" they are simply misinformed

They may know people who are OK with gay marriage but those people are not Christians

 

in other words, you got your "gay rights" so now you wish to impose your morality

You wanted the slippery slope and you got it.

Also please provide to me the name of the medical test that can be run on a newborn to determine that they were in fact, "born homosexual"

 

you'll neve rlearn will you?

let's go there shall we

female has vagina, male has penis.

Biology has it that penis into vagina for reproduction. So, at best, even if there ever is any type of blood work or test to confirm that one is "homosexual" then it should be deemed a birth defect, wouldn't you agree?

uh oh, you didn't see that coming did ya?

 

The answer would be "any of the above".

For a lot of people these days, it wouldn't matter. But for those who are themselves fighting against prejudice and bigotry, it does matter because a definitive answer on this question may provide them with a strong tool for arguments in favour of LGBT rights.

 

Wasn't talking about reproduction. Any human is capable of that. I was referencing the lifestyle.

 

Already asked today, already answered - see post #101

 

I will repeat from the standard contract for employment in a Catholic school:

The TEACHER may be suspended or discharged for good cause as shall be determined in the
exclusive discretion of the Board of Trustees. It is specifically understood that good cause for
discharge shall include but not be limited to: inadequacy of teaching, misconduct, neglect of
duty, physical or mental incapacity, actions involving moral turpitude, violation of the terms of
this agreement or _____ Academy policy, or any conduct not in keeping with the Catholic Faith
or conduct tending to reflect discredit upon the school or tending to impair the TEACHER’S
usefulness in his capacity as a teacher.

You sign that to teach in a Catholic School, if a gay person signs it then they lied and should be fired.

 

On inter-racial marriage, firing someone for that reason would not likely stand up in court. But that was not the question I was asked and answered.

But why prevent a religion - or any private organization - from banning members from interracial marriage? It is not banning civil marriage. Its not preventing non-members from marrying whoever they want to marry. Membership in the religion is voluntary, all members agree to the terms, if some don't then they can leave. Its not a political organization, it does not control tax dollars, decisions that impact you are not made there.

Essentially it only impacts members, nobody else. So why do you care? Why are you so interested in telling other people how to live?

That's your morality, and it is not shared by everyone. Homosexuality is explicitly labeled as a sin in the Old and New Testament. Homosexual marriage is even worse as its flaunting sin, its a deliberate insult against God. Why can't you and the gays live and let live (as the gays claimed they wanted)? Why do you want to try to force a church to act in a way that endangers the members eternal soul?

And do you really think that you or anyone has a snowflakes chance in hell of rewriting the fundamental text of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, without starting a real war? The reality is that you will never change those beliefs. The only solution is to coexist as much as possible.

And again, why do you care? Gays can get religious weddings in various religions and churches, they can get civil weddings. Why are they so interested in forcing everyone to accept their homosexuality?

 

Again, its the active minority that causes the trouble and makes changes in society. The silent majority is irrelevant - unless they stop sitting on the sidelines and rein in their zealous brethren.

Until the silent passive gay majority speaks out against the excess of their spokesmen, then they are as complicit in the excesses as their zealous leaders.

And the silent majority is silent. You don't know what they think because they are silent. You assume they are reasonable, but its a much safer assumption that their silence is tacit approval of their leaders and they support the excesses.

 

She is a public servant of the government. She crossed all boundaries when she ordered others to refuse and lost any high ground she could have claimed. Also her third adulterous relationship proved her beliefs to be false.

Freedom OF religion, no one is telling the bakery what to believe - only what regulations they agreed to when they CHOSE to open a bakery to the public.

So Muslum can beat their wives in public - it is their religion after all? Stoning non-virgins? All that is allowed? Your freedoms END when they impact another. Your views that religions have ultimate reign is telling

****

Lie

Lie

Lie

Why didn't the bakery move to a state that welcomed their beliefs, that's too much tolerance I guess.

 

You are completely ignorant of the Oregon and Colorado cases.

In the Colorado case, the appeals court admitted that Jack Phillips said he would provide a cake to the gay men, just not a wedding cake. The gays (Charlie Craig, David Mullins) demanded a gay wedding cake. http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceAppealsDecision.pdf

Get up to speed on the issue before posting.

****

The 1st Amendment states

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.

There is no "freedom of religion" - Congress shall not create a state religion, Congress shall not hinder the free exercise of religion.

While you are getting up to speed on the Oregon and Colorado cases, get up to speed on the Constitution.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). the catholic church has no issue with gay people. they even have a support group for gays

 

lol Man, what would some of you do without that book... It's just a book in a long line (and not the first) of books about the same story. Crap... Hell, most notable was the book of the dead that came way before the bible. The Egyptians had a virgin giving birth, wise men, a dude on a cross, the guy on the cross came back form the dead... and the rest of the book was a copy also. lol

So, getting away from the security blanket, what other argument do you have? As I pointed out, most people who have a thing against gay people are usually hiding bisexual tendencies. Just sayin.

 

Wrong.

http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine...inclination-guidelines-general-principles.cfm

 

From the link you posted genius.

In the second paragraph

Judging by the above literature the Catholic church actually commands Catholics to love and accept homosexuals. So it looks like you are wrong. And the link you posted proved it. Ha ha ha ha ha...

 

Wonder how many teacher/employees are in a 2nd marriage. Living an adulterous lifestyle. If there is 1, than the church is a hypocrite.
Or how about if they smoke or drink and abuse the body, the temple according to the Lord. Hypocrites.

 

*shrug* Yes. But being a hypocrite is allowed in this country. In fact, I'd say most of us earn that title at one point or another.




​