"Wrong"

That goes both ways of course though. Some people need to realize that when someone criticizes their post, it is not necessarily a personal attack on them. Attack the post, not the poster type situation.

And I am guilty of doing that at times myself so I'm not perfect either.

 

I have no need to keep score, your own failures do more than enough to show that you are, in essence, a worthless poster.

 

How dare Polydectes suggest you follow the words of Christ?!

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."​

 

The real problem is balancing the conflicting rights of 2 people, but before the real problem can be addressed, some people have to be educated that there is a real problem.

Very true, that's why there are the various religious based factions in politics. When the federal government stayed within its boundaries, there was no need for religion to enter the political arena. Once groups (both secular and non-secular) began using the government to perform social engineering and shape morality the govt began infringing on personal freedoms including religious freedom.

Religious people apply a faith based lens to politics in order to protect their rights. Its a no win situation however since typically all candidates are corrupt.

 

If you take that literally, it just means to pray privately. It does not mean a person has to keep their religion out of all aspects of life that interact with the world. Most of the New Testament is all about Christians acting their faith in the world - something the gays can't stand.

 

To someone without confirmation bias, it seems to say that your beliefs are between you and your deity, not something you need to demonstrate or show off to others.

When you say things like: "As I have written before, you want religion removed completely from the public square, you want me to compromise or abandon my beliefs while you retain yours, and keep my religion in a private closet where nobody can see it.", you seem to be contradicting the beliefs you claim to be defending.

After all, nobody is saying that you can't believe in whatever you want. But believing in something doesn't mean you get to tell others what to believe, or force your beliefs on them - just as you wouldn't accept them claiming that they had a right to force you to participate in homosexual activity.

 

Your Bible quote is not about keeping religion private or not acting based on religious principles. Read the entire passage so you will understand it, not just one sentence taken out of context. Matthew 6:1-8 is a lesson is to do good deeds to honor God, not to gain worldly praise by making a big public show of charity and religious devotion.

It absolutely does not mean a person should not act in a manner in line with Christianity. Christianity demands a person act in accordance with Christian requirements, to not perform sinful acts, to set a good example of Christian values for others, to spread Christianity. It has nothing to do with "showing off" - showing off is what Matthew 6:1-8 argues against.

The social conflict here is the clash between religious values (homosexuality is a sin) and peoples desire to exercise a homosexual lifestyle. The interests of the 2 groups have come into conflict partly due to the fault of gays (attacking religious people for thoughts not actions), partly due to the fault of the religious people (protecting their "turf" through things like DOMA), and partly due to the linking of legal welfare to marital status (tax benefits, insurance beneficiary, etc).

The solution is for everyone to step back to the old view that a civil union is a legal act between 2 people and the state, and a religious union is a spiritual act between 2 people and God, and everyone leave each other alone.

But I doubt that will happen because the gay activists have the (for now) upper legal hand and are on a jihad against religion.

 

No, just that your religion isn't a good legal defense.

You were wrong before and you still are. I don't care about your religious beliefs. They simply aren't a good legal defense.

 

It's all posturing. He has attempted that several times

 

Let's say, hypothetically, that there are two groups (group 1, and group 2) and each group has its own rules/beliefs.
The beliefs of these two groups directly contradict each other.

Would you agree that one group should be able to dictate the actions of the other, or would you think that each group should follow their own beliefs and avoid impacting the other?

Christians (group 1) believe homosexuality is a objectionable. Great, don't engage in it - but leave others to pursue their own beliefs.
Homosexuals (group 2) believe being an intolerant bigot is objectionable. Great, don't engage in it - but leave others to pursue their own beliefs.

Of course, this is an oversimplification... There are many gay christians.

 

Its up to the courts to decide the compromise between competing rights, and they have done that many times. Whether you like it or not, religion is here to stay, and you are just going to have to live with it.

 

They apparently decided. Seems they think religion is a crummy excuse also. Ordering the disgruntled baker not to discriminate as they did. Seems you are the one with some accepting to do.

 

Its not over, time will tell, but no matter what the courts decide it will not change my mind or the teachings of religion.

 

Except that marriage is not "your turf" and never has been.

 

Yes, it is an oversimplification - a biased inflammatory exaggeration, and wording that shows a lack of knowledge of the problem.

It seems you want to pick a fight where none exists. As I wrote, the two groups should leave each other alone. Both groups have made mistakes, both should step back and accept each others boundaries.

 

One day you will actually read a post before responding. Marriage is not the "turf" of gays or churches. Earlier I clearly wrote that we should go back to the concept that a civil union was an agreement between 2 people and the state, and a religious union was an agreement between 2 people and God.

 

1. What a person believes religiously is fine....but I object to the automatic declaration of "Our version of the religion is the correct one and if you disagree with it, you disagree with the ENTIRE religion".....IOW, Battle's attempt to say that since some Christian churches teach opposition to gay marriage, if you support SSM rights, you are "against Christianity" (or even "all religion").

So does he apply that same standard to a Christian church who SUPPORTS gay rights? Are the people who oppose gay rights....in opposition to that Christian church..."against Christianity"?


2. Public accomodation arguments are now nearly identical to what they were in the 50s and 60s with racial integration. With almost the same arguments (among more racist types...identical).

You're right. But go beyond bus drivers or bakers.....

What's to prevent a DOCTOR who is a self-declared anti-gay "Christian" from saying "I refuse to give a gay patient's spouse the same visitation rights as I would for a straight patient's spouse, at the hospital....and if you force me to, you are violating my religious liberty!"?

 

So you didn't say

Are you not religious and as such fall under the "their"?

and why should people adhere to what small minded people think, why shouldn't homosexuals who are religious not have a religious union between them and god, after all there is no consensus that anything in the bible (OT or NT) specifically condemns homosexuality.

Most Christians quote Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. as condemning homosexuals. The presumed references to 'homosexuality' itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτη&#962, malakos (μαλακό&#962, and porneia. While it is not disputed that the three Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se. So in reality it is nothing more than interpretation that leads to this, in my opinion, false condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality.

 

Again, read before replying.

I did not say that homosexuals could not be religious or have a relationship with God. I did not say that all religions share the same principles or are based on the New Testament, or even the same interpretation of the New Testament.

If a particular religion believes that homosexuality, drinking alcohol, adultery, sex before marriage or dancing in public are sins and should not be encouraged, then that is their right, it does not matter if you - or even a majority - agree with those beliefs. That church is not forcing everyone to be heterosexual, or abstain from alcohol and dancing or sex before marriage or adultery, so don't force that church to redefine what it considers to be sinful. If a person does not subscribe to the beliefs of that particular church, then don't go to it, go to one with beliefs that are acceptable to that person.

Catholics interpret the New Testament as mandating a Pope, Baptists do not. A major difference which over history has contributed to wars, but people have learned to accept the difference and live with each other.

There are going to be some problem areas, but they are not significant and both sides of this gay issue can live with them - if they choose to leave each other alone and have some degree of tolerance.

 

I did, if I misunderstood you then I apologise.

Neither did I say you did, please don't confuse a question with an accusation.

No one is asking the church to re-define anything, no church or religious establishment will be forced to conduct a SSM, where the problem lies is when religious people try to impose their beliefs onto homosexuals, by refusing to serve them based purely on a personal belief as anyone knows you cannot offer a service to one group of people and then deny that service to another group based on nothing more than a personal belief .. If that were true then a shop owner could refuse to serve a black, Jew or any other person and that is pretty much the definition of discrimination. You need to have a compelling reason to refuse service and I'm afraid a personal religious belief is not a compelling reason.

IF homosexuals were attempting to force various religious sects to marry them then you would have a point, they are not and you don't, all homosexuals want is to be treated as any other person is.

I'm sorry but tolerance does not include accepting the refusal to offer services based on religious beliefs, and which have no reflection on those beliefs.

In the end what it boils down to is that if you are a religious person who runs a business serving the public and you do not wish to serve homosexuals then change your business to a private club or a religious institution, that way you can choose to serve who you want.

 

The only oversimplification is that it ignores people who belong to both groups simultaneously.

I absolutely agree that both groups should leave each other alone... This means homosexuals shouldn't try to force anyone to undertake "homosexual activities", and christians shouldn't try to force everyone to abide by their chosen dogma.

Not sure how this is "starting a fight where none exists", given that you seem hellbent on ensuring your "side" is the only one that should be publicly available/demonstrated.

 

Gays should not try to force someone to engage in homosexual activity - but that's not the issue and a red herring. Gays should not silence someone who says homosexuality is a sin or force someone to proclaim homosexuality is not a sin, or force schools to teach a homosexual lifestyle is normal or equivalent to a traditional family arrangement. That's where the intersection of rights exists, not in the bedroom.

 

Which they are not doing

Really how?

Again that is not the case here, though if it was the case what is the foundation of homosexuality being a sin, as pointed out the vast majority of religious people who proclaim homosexuality as a sin are doing so from a position of relative ignorance based on a non proven bible interpretation.

Why, simply because you don't think it is and please do define normal, I would say that homosexuality is not only normal but also part of nature, after all pretty much every species displays homosexuality. Define traditional family arrangement, just how traditional do you want to be? I mean the one man one woman dogma is a fairly recent ideology, given that for most of the bible there are multiple instances of polygamy.
In fact, there were a variety of unions and family configurations that were permissible in the cultures that produced the Bible, and these ranged from monogamy (Titus 1:6) to those where rape victims were forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and to those Levirate marriage commands obligating a man to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4). Others insisted that celibacy was the preferred option (1 Corinthians 7:8; 28 ).

I find it more than a little hypocritical for you to say that homosexuality should not be addressed in schools and yet you probably advocate for heterosexuality being addressed, how is your stance not "forcing schools" to teach something that would be unnatural to a homosexual?

 

By claiming this is a red herring, you're saying I'm trying to distract from the topic at hand... Given that the topic at hand is one group forcing another to adhere to their chosen morals, there was no red herring.

Your belief that it is not "normal" or "equivalent" is just that: your belief, and I believe it's based solely on religious dogma that cannot (constitutionally) be used as the foundation of legislation.
You should not be able to silence people who believe otherwise while whining that they're trying to silence you.

 

If a person believes a morality in which adultery and homosexuality are sins, and teach their children that morality, then the school should not teach a contradictory morality. Would you have the school teach adultery is a harmless activity and equal to marriage? The same for homosexuality.