@caesar-salad saidIndeed not.
Looking forward to @eladar's reply, but for a long time I have thought:
Christianity without persecution is like waffles without maple syrup.
Christianity without persecution is like waffles with strawberries and whipped cream.
@caesar-salad saidWhy assume that the group called "Christians" and the group called "lesbians" have no common members?
Also, if Christians and Lesbians do agree that making money is good, if the Lesbians get a nice tax break by getting married, shouldn't the Christian be happy to bake a cake for them in celebration of that?
@eladar saidAre you insane?
They are greatly different. One is simply a right to privacy the other is the right to religious freedom.
The trampling of religious freedom is egregious.
The couple requesting a cake isn't encroaching on anyone's "religious freedom". Or do you mean the freedom to shove their religious views down others' throats?
-Removed-I think the word stupid is being used for the wrong people. Look in the mirror maybe? It's your word just use it a little more knowledgeably.
But to clear the answer up for you, there is nothing in the bible that says a Christian doctor could not perform medical help for homosexual, or a Christian can not work on ones car, or to protect one if in law enforcement. Don't you get it? Where is your common sense? Doesn't the bible explain that we are to help anyone in need in everyday issues such as was explained in the "good Samaritan" example? You should read that and get the point. A Christian should help any human in need of help.
Doing work on ones car does not at all conflict with being a Christian. It is not promoting homosexuality or their life style.
Think about it with a little common sense involved?
Now the Bible makes it very clear that under your roof, no couples whether gay or straight would ever be allowed to sleep in your house in the same bed. That is called fornication if they were to have sex which any dummy would understand this is committing fornication. And with ones who are gay even if they are legally married, they are still in gods doing something as the bible says, is "detestable" to him. God's words not mine.
I know you don't agree which isn't a surprise but maybe you should know a little more about a subject before you post your thoughts?
@fmf saidThis is actually semantically a very incorrect setup.
Whatever your beliefs are, theist or atheist or somewhere in between, if you are opposed to reducing or eliminating discrimination against homosexuals [by society and/or by the government], what types of discrimination would you support?
It's like saying something like... "So, I hear some people here support abortion. Do you support killing babies in all circumstances, or just in certain circumstances? In what circumstances is it OK to kill babies?"
In order to clarify...
- "Free association" is the basis upon which most people say that their company has the right to deny business to people for ideological or other differences. This is viewed as a right in many circumstnaces. Facebook terminating the account of Paul Joseph Watson is covered by this principle, right.
- Not allowing a dog and a man to marry is not 'discrimination.' It is simply believing that dogs and men cannot marry. It's wrong. It doesn't constitute a marriage.
This can, of course, be applied further.
You do not have to disagree with it but understanding that the culture of the person limits marriage to certain acts & choosing to not dislodge their worldview from this ideological framework is the only way to actually discuss it with them.
Accusing people off the bat of discrimination is improperly framing the debate.
@philokalia saidNo, you're wrong - the OP is fine. The debate is usually centred around one side opposing the efforts of the other side to reduce or eliminate discrimination. So this thread has turned that around in a reasonable way and the question becomes: 'if you don't want discrimination reduced or eliminated, what kinds of discrimination do you approve of'?
This is actually semantically a very incorrect setup...
Accusing people off the bat of discrimination is improperly framing the debate.
@philokalia saidCulture gets changed.
You do not have to disagree with it but understanding that the culture of the person limits marriage to certain acts & choosing to not dislodge their worldview from this ideological framework is the only way to actually discuss it with them.
Accusing people off the bat of discrimination is improperly framing the debate.
@fmf saidI do not understand what the obsession is with phrasing the original question with your own biases.
No, you're wrong - the OP is fine. The debate is usually centred around one side opposing the efforts of the other side to reduce or eliminate discrimination. So this thread has turned that around in a reasonable way and the question becomes: 'if you don't want discrimination reduced or eliminated, what kinds of discrimination do you approve of'?
Why not let the question be the question, and the question be something that seeks to be objective, and not have the question editorialized.
I think that is the most mature way to phrase things. It makes the whole thing like an invitation to discussion. When you do it this way, it just makes the territory hostile & abrasive from the start.
Re: culture changing
That's right -- it goes from conservative to liberal to conservative to whatever. Indeed, it can change so much that the phrases that we use and questions that we ask are not necessarily interchangeable.
... Another important thing here: culture does not determine what is right or wrong. It's just the collection of norms and reference points in a society. Moreover, a culture can be in conflict with itself, or a society can have multiple cultures within it.
@philokalia saidThis is a poor argument; it fails to the simple and obvious counter-fact that dogs can't give sexual consent.
- Not allowing a dog and a man to marry is not 'discrimination.' It is simply believing that dogs and men cannot marry. It's wrong. It doesn't constitute a marriage.
@philokalia saidI am just sharing my perspective and inviting others to do the same. If you're going to complain or campaign against people writing questions composed based on their perspectives, I shall now keep an eye on your efforts to tackle the hundreds and hundreds of threads started by religionists who phrase their OP questions according to their own biases
I do not understand what the obsession is with phrasing the original question with your own biases.