• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discrimination?

Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

You may have that right, but you are violating someone else's rights when you discriminate against them and fail to provide them a service at your place of business. In that case the person's rights to not be subjected to such discrimination trumps your rights to insulate yourself in that way. Furthermore, those who refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation in that name of religion, are doing so under a misguided understanding of religious principles, because they are violating the religious principles of tolerance and mercy. Jesus taught tolerance, mercy, and loving others as you love yourself.

I'm not talking about some business, except my own personal business that if I see you dying in the street I don't have to do a damn thing.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

It means that when people have a genuine spiritual experience they will love God with all of the heart, mind and soul. As a result of this love of God they will truly love their fellow man so much that they will actually they will naturally turn the other cheek if someone else delivers a blow, go the extra mile of someone else makes them go one, and beg for forgiveness on behalf of someone who might be doing something so extreme as killing them by nailing them to a cross. So yes, that spiritual experience would make them not want to discriminate against someone else in their place of business based on their sexual orientation. It simply won't be in their heart to do such a thing. So that is the real solution. Everything else is shakey because it depends on mundane, fallible people.

again NOT an answer
you are telling me what you THINK can happen but religion has been around for ever so i will AGAIN ask you. What you suggest?

you suggest this subjective enlightenment that you think can happen so how do you get it to happen . . . .

right now your solution is a million times more shaky than laws, rights and constitutions . . how do you know the god you pick isnt fallible?
i mean religion has been here for a very long time and it hasnt worked yet to achieve what you claim it will, im a christian and i would NEVER suggest a country be ran on religion . . EVER . . . or sit back and wait for my GOD to touch each individual that would be more shaky then anything i could even invent

Ill stick with the system we have now, its much more stable and solid.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

And here's what the Bible says about liars

So lying is ok, but homosexuality is not ok. That is not how it works.

Not sure why you continue to strawman when you are smart enough to read.

Lying and Homosexuality are both sin. I have no problem serving liars or homosexuals, but I will not take part in events that celebrate either lying or homosexuality.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

I agree with Gov. Huckabee. The proponents of the homosexual agenda are intensely hostile to Christianity, because many Christians believe homosexuality is immoral. They are on a crusade to bludgeon these Christians into approving of their behavior, and they will not tolerate any dissenting view. This attack on Indiana's RFRA shows that hostility very clearly. The law never mentions homosexuals, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with them.

What prompted concern about the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was that the Supreme Court had narrowed its protection of that right. The first unmistakable sign of this narrowing came in Goldman v. Weinberger in 1986, where the Court rejected an Orthodox Jewish Army psychiatrist's apparently reasonable free exercise challenge to a regulation that prohibited him from wearing a yarmulke on duty. Two years later, in Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Assn., the Court ruled that the federal government did not need to concern itself with the possible impact of its land use decisions on religious practices. Based on that rule, it allowed a road to be built through a national forest, despite the objection of local Indians that it disrupted sacred ground.

And then in 1990, the Court decided Employment Division v. Smith, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion. The case involved a free exercise claim by an Indian who had been denied unemployment payments by Oregon, after he had been fired for using peyote in what he claimed was a religious ceremony. For fifty years, the Court had required government to show that laws which substantially burdened the right to free exercise served a compelling interest and were narrowly tailored. But in Smith, it scrapped that heightened scrutiny standard except when a law specifically targeted religious practice, holding that generally applicable criminal laws do not raise a free exercise issue at all.

Smith aroused so much concern that it led to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which both houses of Congress passed by very large margins, which President Clinton gladly signed, and which such Democrats as Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama heartily endorsed. The aim of the RFRA was to restore the heightened standard of review the Court had used before Smith in cases such as Sherbert and Yoder. In 1997, though, in City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court held the RFRA unconstitutional, as applied to states. Specifically, it held that section five of the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress authority to substitute its interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause for the Court's.

The proponents of the homosexual agenda hate the Indiana RFRA because they think it might give Christian business owners a basis for denying service to homosexuals, out of the belief that homosexuality is sinful. For much the same reason, the proponents of the abortion agenda hated the use of the federal RFRA to relieve the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby of the obligation to pay for contraceptives they objected to based their belief they were in fact abortifacients. To the statist crusaders behind these movements, observant Christians are an enemy that has to be crushed. Leftism is its own secular quasi-religion, and it is a very narrow-minded and intolerant one. That's what is so ironic about the claim of many of its followers to be "liberals"--they are the very opposite of liberal.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

And this is why more and more people are turning to atheism or alternative religions. Here we have an example of a non-bigoted Christian (I assume) making excuses and essentially apologizing for the conduct of bad Christians.

No, he's attempting to demonstrate to you the difference between the strawman position of "Christians want to be able to kick gays out of restaurants" and the actual position which is "Christians want to not be forced to participate in gay weddings".

Guess what? Many Christians have come to accept the fact that gays CANNOT CHANGE THEIR NATURE, and thus it would be morally criminal to condemn them both in this life and the next.

While I would have to point out that human sexuality is actually both multivariate and malleable..... so? No one who is sinful can change their nature. That doesn't remove agency from us. We choose our actions, if we play less a role in choosing our temptations.

You can either join the revolution or be stuck playing clean up for the bigoted Christians of yesteryear.

:shrug: when asked to conform to the world or conform to Christ, I know where to stand.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Not sure why you continue to strawman when you are smart enough to read.

Lying and Homosexuality are both sin. I have no problem serving liars or homosexuals, but I will not take part in events that celebrate either lying or homosexuality.

If it's the activity that is of concern, you would not take part in events where people where engaging the activity of homosexuality NOR the activity of lying.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Why would anyone, as a Christian, seek to make life more miserable for someone that they know is going to be punished in the afterlife?

Well I can think of numerous reasons. My drill instructors, for example, made my life miserable in order to break me down that I might be rebuilt. No doubt some of them were Christian and some of their recruits are not and will not be saved. I couldn't tell you which ones, but it's almost a mathematical certainty. However, we do not, in fact, know with certainty who is saved and who isn't. The only exceptions to this are people Jesus said were saved (we can be fairly confident that He knew what he was talking about): the thief on the cross, Zacchaeus, etc. So I have (really) no idea if (for example) my little sister (who is a "lesbian") is saved or not - nor do I have that certainty about any other sinner. We can guess (my bet is: Genghis Khan? Not likely), but none of us are on that committee.


It's certainly not out of love

It certainly can be. You do not love alcoholics by offering them a drink, you do not love those struggling with porn addiction by taking them to strip clubs, you do not love those struggling with gluttony by buying them cupcakes, you love an alcoholic by staging an (uncomfortable) intervention, you love a porn addict by helping him to rip out all those portions of his life that tempt him beyond his ability to resist, you love a glutton by encouraging them in (painful) exercise and (less fun) healthy eating.

Many gay people commit suicide in an effort to conform to non-gay/Christian standards.

And that is horrifically tragic, for both them and those they leave behind.

It simply seems like punching down.

That's interesting. I see a small business baker or photographer being descended upon by a national media fury, multi-million-dollar protest/advocacy movements, having their name and character attacked on a national scale, and having their lives and the lives of their family threatened by hysterical idiots, and I don't see that guy punching "down".

As an atheist, I have committed the most grievous sin of Christianity.

Nope. The most grievous sin of Christianity (to the extent that there is one) is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

If it's the activity that is of concern, you would not take part in events where people where engaging the activity of homosexuality NOR the activity of lying.

That is correct (I'm trying to put some meaning on this, it was written a little messed up): I should not take part in or support events that celebrate/encourage homosexual activities or lying activities. Events whose purposes are benign but which include among it's members homosexuals and liars are fine.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

That is correct (I'm trying to put some meaning on this, it was written a little messed up): I should not take part in or support events that celebrate/encourage homosexual activities or lying activities. Events whose purposes are benign but which include among it's members homosexuals and liars are fine.

I am assuming that you include events where people will be engaging in homosexual activities and will be engaging in lying, not merely celebrating it or encouraging it.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

I am assuming that you include events where people will be engaging in homosexual activities and will be engaging in lying, not merely celebrating it or encouraging it.

No. For example, if I were asked to cater a business' Holiday Party, and Joe from Accounting came with his boyfriend Bob from Marketing, the event is not in and of itself a celebration of homosexuality - it is a celebration of the business having another year. If the business were to ask me to cater their off-site training on how-to-suck-another-dude's-dick-and-love-it, that would be an event centered around homosexual activity, and that is one I couldn't support.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

No. For example, if I were asked to cater a business' Holiday Party, and Joe from Accounting came with his boyfriend Bob from Marketing, the event is not in and of itself a celebration of homosexuality - it is a celebration of the business having another year. If the business were to ask me to cater their off-site training on how-to-suck-another-dude's-dick-and-love-it, that would be an event centered around homosexual activity, and that is one I couldn't support.

But what if it was an event in which a large number of homosexuals would be there, but not necessarily for what you call the celebration of homosexuality? A party where heterosexuals and homosexuals would be loose in their behavior, as adults can be at parties. What if it was an event where you knew people would be intentionally engaging in deceit, not necessarily celebrating it? If its the activity that is of concern, one would not cater to either.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Actually, the Lake of Fire is New Testament (Revelation chapter 20).

Have you ever read the Bible? Recommend the NIV Study Bible, or the MacArthur Study Bible. Both have lots of notes.
Some wold say the most controversial chapter in the Bible.
Yes, I no longer go to church though except weddings, funerals and baptisms.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

What happened in the past was not right. I am not RCC myself.
Hope the prick went to jail

He did, sick thing is the SOB would do the children's mass.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

But what if it was an event in which a large number of homosexuals would be there, but not necessarily for what you call the celebration of homosexuality?

Then the event itself is not a celebration of homosexual activity. Every single individual in the room could be (by coincidence or whatever) homosexual, but if the event is about fixing the city's sewer systems, then I am not enabling or participating in something that violates my faith, I'm enabling/serving people in pursuit of good public hygiene.

A party where heterosexuals and homosexuals would be loose in their behavior, as adults can be at parties.

If a party not designed to be an orgy turns into an orgy then that is something I would have to leave, regardless of the sexual preferences of the participants.

What if it was an event where you knew people would be intentionally engaging in deceit, not necessarily celebrating it?

Is it the purpose of the event, or just something that happens there? Is it a defining characteristic or activity of the event, or unconnected to its' purpose and not-representative.

If its the activity that is of concern, one would not cater to either.

The question is whether or not the activity is enough of the event that participation in the event means support/enablement/celebration/what-have-you of the activity.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Any rate people want to come down hard on homosexuality, but when it comes to the type of sinful activity they are prone to, it becomes a different matter.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Is it the purpose of the event, or just something that happens there? Is it a defining characteristic or activity of the event, or unconnected to its' purpose and not-representative.

What I am saying is that regardless of the purpose, what if it were an event where you knew that people would be intentionally engaging in deceit. If it is the activity that concerns you, you would not cater to such an event. Just like if you knew it was an event in which people would be engaged in homosexuality, regardless of the purpose of the event.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

What I am saying is that regardless of the purpose, what if it were an event where you knew that people would be intentionally engaging in deceit.

The purpose is not something that can be disregarded - it is, in this example, rather central to my decision.


It's sort of like asking "Regardless of whether or not you think it is the right decision, should we go to war"?


If it is the activity that concerns you, you would not cater to such an event

On the contrary - the activity is the problem, which is why whether or not the event is about the activity is central to whether or not to support the event.

Just like if you knew it was an event in which people would be engaged in homosexuality, regardless of the purpose of the event.

Again. If every single member of the room is a homosexual married to a member of the same gender and the event is about sewage, then the event is about sewage. If it's billed as an event about sewage and turns into a gay orgy, then it has become something else and I have to leave.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Again. If every single member of the room is a homosexual married to a member of the same gender and the event is about sewage, then the event is about sewage. If it's billed as an event about sewage and turns into a gay orgy, then it has become something else and I have to leave.

All I am saying is that if you knew it was an event where people would be engaged in homosexual activity, you would not cater to it, regardless of the purpose of the event. IF it is really the sin of the activity that you have a problem with, IF it were an event where you knew people would be intentionally engaging in the practice of deceit, you would not cater to it. That is IF the sinful nature of the activity was really a concern.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Some wold say the most controversial chapter in the Bible.

I haven't heard that until now. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

On the other hand the Bible and the message of Christ himself is offensive to many.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Jesus hung out with hookers, gays & misfits. He didn't give a rats ass who or what you were.

That's true, but he didn't embrace or approve of their sins. He told them to repent and go and sin no more. I don't think the pro-gay crowd would approve of that.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

People use religion to suit their agenda and their personality. If they are of good character and intent, they will focus on the positive scripture and output a positive message. IF You are of poor character, so you focus on the punishment / suffering aspect of God, and put forth a hateful message.

Alot of it is projection....they know what needs to be curbed in themselves and believe everyone has the same desires or impulses.

I agreed with your statements but I changed your quote slightly because I didnt want it to focus on a particular poster.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

That's true, but he didn't embrace or approve of their sins. He told them to repent and go and sin no more. I don't think the pro-gay crowd would approve of that.

Did they repent, were you there. Did Jesus say it was a sin. He even loved those that crucified him.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

If the objection was to homosexuality then it should not be limited to wedding day service. The idea that supplying goods/services to sinners is participating in a sin is quite a stretch.

And it would apply to marrying or remarrying *adulterers and fornicators, for example....but interestingly enough....it doesnt.


*I believe the Catholic Church still does.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

That's true, but he didn't embrace or approve of their sins. He told them to repent and go and sin no more. I don't think the pro-gay crowd would approve of that.

Here is a song for you. Pay close attention to the words being said. Remember the lord moves in mysterious ways

 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

All I am saying is that if you knew it was an event where people would be engaged in homosexual activity, you would not cater to it, regardless of the purpose of the event.

That is incorrect.

IF it is really the sin of the activity that you have a problem with, IF it were an event where you knew people would be intentionally engaging in the practice of deceit, you would not cater to it. That is IF the sinful nature of the activity was really a concern.

No, because then catering the event does not cause me to enable/participate/celebrate/take-part-in/whathaveyou the actual sinful activity going on. It's not a matter of "don't be around sinful people".
 
Back
Top Bottom