You do understand that feelings and love are simply chemical reactions in the brain, correct? Straight or gay, attraction is the brain's chemical reaction to another person. I don't know how you choose to have a chemical reaction occur inside of your body, but if you do, then I'm really impressed.
I'm religious and this is the argument I've been using for years! I prefer keeping my religion out of government so my government doesn't get in my religion, so no one's religious beliefs should be used to deny rights to another individual. This means only that gays would be married legally. If God is against gay marriage, it's not like gays would suddenly be married in his eyes. Being married LEGALLY has nothing to do with being married in the eyes of the church.
I'm already for same-sex marriage (and, you know, equality in general) but I find myself still watching and rewatching your videos. Such well-rounded arguments. I'm really learning. :)
"The phrase 'sexual preference' by itself implies choice." maybe we have to differentiate between preference in the sense of a decision to give one objective a higher priority over another (e.g. the decision to learn for a test instead of playing computer games) and preference in the sense of 'prefering' to do something, without consideration for the possible consequences of an action. but english is not my native language, so it is very possible that one of these definitions is just wrong ;-)
I agree w/ the exception of one thing. The phrase 'sexual preference' by itself implies choice. Its my opinion that sexual orientation or perhaps sexual inclination would be more accurate in portraying it as more as an undeniable draw instead of a choice. As for homophobia and racism being different well sure their different no two prejudices are exactly the same. The reasons are different the people are different but one thing prejudices will always have in common is that theyr'e irrational
Please make a video on the history of Marriage. It was never originally 'religious'. It did not become a holy sacrament until the 1400's, also, marriage as we know it today came from Pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes, although many areas around the world had 'marriage' in its own way. It my be useful to mention the Native American tribes who had their kind of marriages, and they had homosexual marriage, and it was respected. We had homosexual couples on this land before the Manifest Destiny Massacre.
Men having sex with other men in prison is generally not a function of men becoming sexually attracted to one another. It's about power and dominance and humiliation. So that's not an example of anyone "convincing themselves" they're gay. If you're gay, no one has to convince you. Just like if you're straight, no one has to convince you.
Trust me, I’ve supported the marriage equality movement for quite a while and know very few gay people that want to “force” churches to perform same-sex marriages. And we’ve always hoped for social acceptance of all sexual orientations, but there’s no way for us to force our opinions on you. If you want to believe that gay people are second class citizens, then go right ahead. The change needs to come from you, not us. It’s when those beliefs turn to discrimination that a line needs to be drawn.
"Marriage is a heterosexual institution. It will not work for same sex couples. It is like putting a jock strap on a woman." LMAO! That was one of best that he's come up with. And by "best" I mean - ridiculous. You actually CAN put a jock strap on a woman. My sister wears one when she plays field hockey. You can put a jock strap on a woman and gays can get married. I wonder how old Joe is. My evangelical grandma is more with it than him and she's 95. She was a flower girl at my wedding!
I had a choice and I chose it. I could have chosen to live in the closet and be afraid of my own shadow, like you, but I chose a different path. I chose be honest and open about being gay. I don't "shove it in people's faces" as you types like to accuse us of, but I certainly don't pretend I'm something I'm not to please others. You should try it sometime. Maybe you'd find some happiness.
Interesting in Australia last Sat May 22 when the previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison who is a strong Pentecostal wanted to pass religious freedom legislation allowing the church to discriminate on gay marriage and many other issues. Had it past, gay Christians would also have had religious freedom. We had a Federal election and he lost by a large margin. In 2017 the government had a postal survey on Same Sex Marriage and 61.9% of Australians voted for it. I am gay and was a Baptist Pastor.
@@mariorizkallah5383 lmao wut? Did you just say people loving each other is immoral? Lmao what a joke. Not all homosexuals have sex, get over it 🤡. Ever heard of the Asexuals? Just stfu.
-It is defined as how I say. Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexual couples. The CHRISTIAN view of Marriage is between one man and women. I implied that in my last comment. -You don't need marriage to build a family.
And I choose to be as I was born. Gay. You weren't born a bigot or a christian. That is how you chose to be. I don't care really. If that's how you choose to live your life, so be it. Just keep it to yourself.
Anybody that owns a business should be able to choose who they provide service to. If you don't agree with gay marriage, you shouldn't HAVE to bake them a cake. This is where we determine that gay marriage threatens our religious freedom, because that gay couple is then going to file a lawsuit and shut that business down rather than simply going to another bakery for their cake. This is completely stripping the bakery of its religious freedom.
Or you could, I don't know....Just bake the fucking cake. I've worked in the public sector and served PLENTY of people I didn't like---but that doesn't give me the right to deny them public service. As a bakery, your sole function is to sell cakes, not be the moral police. Are you going to discriminate against couples of different religions? Races? Nationalities?
Also, if these "poor" business owners are being forced to do things that violate their religions, why do they only throw a fuss over gay couples? I've yet to hear a bakery make a stink about providing a cake to a couple that aren't Christian, or even people that have been convicted of theft and violent crimes.
Fine. Allow the baker to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples. However, it should then be compulsory for such bakers to have their rejection of gays clearly stated in their shop window. Then I know their sales policy before I step over the threshold. My reaction as a straight person? I wouldn't set foot in the bakers. To me they would be bigots and therefore not deserving of my custom.
On second thoughts, I think I am wrong. Because Bible-believin' shopkeepers in the Deep South would quickly dust down their signs saying No Blacks. Don't ya just LOVE the folks in the Bible Belt? As religious as hell and as backward as fuck.
Sarah d I hate to say this, but yeah. Your labor is your own, and if you are a private business (which is not the public sector by any stretch of the imagination) providing a non-essential good or service, you absolutely have the right to determine who you serve. It would be unconstitutional to mandate otherwise. I'm not saying I agree with the baker's personal decision to decline their request to bake them a wedding cake, but to be fair he did offer to make them any other kind of cake, so you can't even truly say he was denying them some form of baked good. We all can make choices in a free society. And in a free society, we all must live with those choices. In this case, the baker might lose some business as a consequence of exercising his personal objection to something that he sees as 'immoral'. And the gay couple will have to find a wedding cake somewhere else, and they will because there are just as many businesses out there willing to make that cake for them. That's what should happen in a free society .
Look, one of the main issues w/ this is the fact that being gay isn't wholly considered morally or societaly acceptable, and many people want it to stay that way. Just as it's not illegal to be gay, but still considered wrong as all other types of non-monogamous, non-heterosexuality. All sorts of things are legal, but are still considered bad or something that should be kept under the rug, and gay marriage can be one of those things just fine.
I think that right there is the flaw in the argument you’re using: marriage is NOT defined by the church. Civil marriages have existed for years, and a civil marriage is separate entirely from religion as the government is (or should be, at least,) separate from religion. Furthermore, marriage existed before Christianity/other religions, as a way to unite sexually involved pairs, so like it or not, marriage is not a religious institution.
John, you should look to my boss Lon Newman of FPHS in Wausau. He wrote extensively about Constitutionality and Religious Freedom in regards to Reproductive Health Care.
Do you think freedom of religion in the US contitution gives religious videographers the right to discriminate against being hired by porn producers to film people engaging in sex? Do you think people in the US should be forced to do things they don't want to do?
Also, exactly what logic supports the idea that everyone is straight? If that were true, we’d all keep to the status quo. It’s just a fact of life: people will conform to the norm when they are able. And as for the social acceptance bit, like I said before, that has to come from people like you. Gay people will still go about living their lives with or without you, and given time, we hope that more and more of you will realize how little bearing same sex relationships have on society.
Your comment was one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. My best friend is a lesbian and she wants to marry a girl one day and grow old with her. In what way does that affect you?
Where will this lead? What about 3-ways? Most gay couples I know allow it. There's no stopping laws to allow all sorts of relationships. I agree on domestic partnerships, but "marriage" is between man & woman.
The bans on same sex marriage exist because of the religious bias of the people who passed these laws. As for the people who have voted against it. It is hypocritical to define the parameters of another’s relationship based on your own religious beliefs. If the government grants certain rights to straight couples through marriage and restricts marriage to gay people, that is discrimination.
i'd like to pass a law that introduces mandatory intelligence tests, and people that score below 80 or so get a tattoo on the forehead that says 'dumb fuck'. that should save a lot of people a lot of time.
im sorry but that comment about morman being a cult and still treating the Romney's as married, omg i couldn't stop cracking up. i normally don't laugh when religion is mentioned as mine teaches respect and understanding for all (no not christian or morman or any of that) but i agree i wish more people would understand same sex marraige
Mildred Loving disagrees with you. So do the majority of Americans. “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others, especially if it denies people’s civil rights.” - Mildred Loving, speaking out for marriage equality on June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia announcement.
"There have been those few odd ball cultures that have tried gay marriage" odd ball cultures like greece, china and the roman empire (that covered most of europe). all of which belonged to the most highly developed cultures of their time. "it is not a violation of the first amendment" quote from the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" i never said christianity is a violation of the first amendment, but making laws of christian doctrines is.
Your first point is moot. The definition of marriage is what I said. You thinking of the biblical definition of marriage. And that definition is not universal.I never said a lack of a mother or a father in the sense of having one parent. I'm saying lesbian/gay parents can raise a child just as good as a heterosexual couple. The qualities required to be raise a good family(Financial, Repsect, Trustworthiness etc..) are not exclusive to heterosexual couple.
Shorter lifespans, higher suicide rate, or let's just group it all up as depression, can all be explained by people getting harassed due to intolerance. No, lying to yourself is pretty much impossible by definition, and you can't convince yourself of something. Beliefs and values are not conscious choices.
My response couldn't fit in one comment. Furthermore I have no problem with polygamy. It doesn't affect me if multiple marriage is legal. Comparing same sex marriage to marrying a 12 year old is like comparing it to marrying a dog. Those two things are incapable of consent whereas homosexual adults are.
Homosexuality is not deviant behavior any more than left-handedness is deviant behavior. In fact, left-handedness is not a behavior. It is a trait, which results in left-handed behavior. Therefore, we must make laws that give them the same rights that straight people have. Period.
The question isn't whether you currently want to have sex with another man. The question is if you're willing to apply the same logic to yourself. Could you change your "thinking and feelings on the behavior" simply by choosing to? That you misunderstood the question twice in a row shows you haven't thought it through. Also, now you say gay sex isn't sex, gay marriage isn't marriage, a heterosexual's sexual preference isn't a sexual preference, and a white horse is not a horse. What did I miss?
Liberals opposed slavery. Liberals opposed segregation. Liberals oppose anti-gay legislation. Liberals oppose legislation diminishing a woman's rights to make her own decisions about reproductive health issues. Liberals support access to voting without unnecessary ways to discourage voting. Liberals support equality. Tolerance for the intolerant is not a liberal value. You got us there!
And then you’d force people to “feel” a certain way? Is that not a breeching of human rights? Aside from the fact that biological studies have show strong evidence for a connection between fetal development and sexual orientation, it is plain hypocrisy to define another’s definition of love based on your beliefs. I am gay and have the same capacity to romantically love a man as you do a woman. Personally, I can’t get angry at someone on the internet, but what you’ve said is egocentric hypocrisy.
Things are only wrong if they cause negative affects for others. Note that theft, homicide, and arson are generally considered wrong. Whereas victimless crimes, prostitution, drugs (which is not necessarily victimless), and other crimes are debatable. The pure truth is that you are oppressing others from doing something that doesn't matter to you or affect you. I'm calling the BS card right now, because you don't know her. If you saw her when she speaks of marriage you would know she wants it.
Legalizing gay marriage does not redefine anything. Marriage by definition is a social union of legal contract between two partners. That's it. If the churches don't want to marry gay couples, then that's cool. It's their church and their beliefs. But denying their rights to marriage outside the church is not only discrimination but a violation of the separation of church and state. Gay marriage does NOT effect anybody.
"1) As I recall that whole gay marriage thing did not work out well for the Roman Empire." xD xD xD NOW you're killing me. homosexuality destroyed the roman empire? i'd really like to see your reasoning on that. 2+3) what's 'perverted' is a matter of perspective. how do you justify that word? what is it that makes homosexuality 'perverted'? seriously, please answer that question.
"We, as a society, have rejected homosexuality." I guessed you missed the part where the world around you changed. The majority of Americans now support gays and marriage equality. With the younger set, approval is at an all time high, in excess of 70%. Minnesota rejected a BAN on gay marriage and then passed a law that legalizes it. It was put on the ballot in 2012 is three states and the majority of the voters in all three states voted in favor of it. You're living in the past Joe. :)
PS: if anything, it would be a re-re-definition. christianity turned marriage into a man-woman thing. but christianity has not invented marriage, nor has it a monopol on it or should have influence on legal marriage, unless you disagree with the first amendment of your constitution.
By evidence I meant actual scientific articles, explain why there have been homosexuals throughout all history. saying someone is wrong just for not adhering to the norm. also your argument assume homosexuals do damage. Please explain why homosexuality is wrong, even if it is a choice.
Attraction is not a behavior. You can't force yourself to be attracted to someone. There are holes in your logic big enough to drive a truck through, yet you keep on talking as if you have something to stand on.
Ok, so since you've yet to prove homosexuality is a choice, then it can be safely said that because their is no benefit in your opinion that gay marriage is a necessity in order to promote equality. Also, this guy also has a video on the differences of polygamy and gay marriage.
people who are into little kids are called 'pedophiles', and this is not a voluntary condition either. however, there are solid reasons to condemn the kind of behaviour pedophiles engage in. where are your reasons to condemn homosexuality? and who are you to decide what's 'perverted'? and fyi: marriage is not an invention of the church, so the church doesn't get to define its meaning.
The fact you are appealing to the Roman Empire for a definition of marriage makes my point sufficiently. - how so? it shows that same-sex marriage is probably as old as marriage itself. The Roman Empire fell for many reasons. - correct, and homosexuality was certainly not one of them. It is not the way we are intended to reproduce as a species. - so your homophobia is based on religion, or at least the pseudo-religious belief that we are 'intended' to do sth., such as reproduce.
That's your problem. You're old. You think like an old person and you're very set in your ways. The younger generation, thankfully, isn't like you. You think I care if you or anyone else accepts me or my marriage? You might worry about such things but I don't. That's the thing. I've learned not to care what others think. The only reason I bother will trolls like you is that I want younger gay people to know that there's a life out there to be had, living proudly and openly. It gets better.
Marriage isn't defined by someone's sexual preferences. Or is it? Those on your side of the argument used to say that it was only for procreation, until we pointed out that it wasn't. Let's just say that marriage was solely about procreation. Were that the case, it would be about sexual preference. Man likes woman - man prefers woman - man and woman make baby. In my case it'd be: man likes man - man prefers man - man and man try to make baby. Fail. Try again. We're "practicing" homosexuals.
People are also not supposed to fly in airplanes. We don't have wings, after all. It's not natural. Go ahead with that line of reasoning if you want to. It is a dead end filled with idiotic conclusions, which seem to be all you have to offer.
But if force Christian private business even one pay by tax payer it both discrimination for the gay and discrimination to the Christian force private business are own pay by tax player now witch one is more important if you asked me is the one for the Christian because a frame of religion of the constitution right it is not a constitutional right for gay marriage it right fro human cane but not A constitutional right like for religion
Wrong again Joe. Civil unions = separate but not equal. I've been married to my husband for 10 years, and we've been together for more than 25 years. We don't care if you or society accepts our relationship, nor are we trying to "punish" you for beliefs. You don't accept me, and I don't accept people like you who are living your chosen lifestyle. We were born gay. You weren't born a christian. That was your choice. It's not up to me to judge, no matter how misguided and deluded I think you are.
I just gave you objective evidence, if that's not good enough for you then you're willfully accepting ignorance to fit your world view, if "feelings" cannot by tested then why do we have the entire science of psychology which studies these feelings? You really think the majority of scientific authorities are lying to you? That's unbelievably ignorant...You know why that happens? Because being gay takes a while to come to terms with, especially with the stigma that comes with it.
Okay, no. "Christian Marriage" is defined as between man and woman/s.Marriage is defined by the BIBLE as being between Man and Woman. And no, you don't need a father and a mother if you want a successful family. The qualities required to raise a good family are not exclusive to heterosexual couples.
Why should all "non-monagamous, non-heterosexual" relationships be considered wrong? Who are you to tell others how they should live their lives and to what moral degree their choices be deemed? Do you also think that racial segregation is good, because living as a person of color is "wrong?" If there's something you don't agree with, then don't practice it. But opinions like yours are one of the major societal flaws in our society, and a dangerous psychological path to follow.
Bottum line, yes, gay marriage does restrict religious freedom. By saying that gay marriage does not undermine religious freedom, you have actually proven the opposite. You have simply redefined religious freedom to fit your opinion. You're right that people tend to confuse legal marriage with religious marriage. People seem to think that just because they have the right to get civilly married, they now have the right to force everyone to support them. I'm not infringing on anybody's freedom simply for refusing to do business with them unless that business involves their immediate safety such as some life saving medical procedure. In that case, if someone else is available to perform the treatment, no problem. Refusing to make a wedding cake does not infringe on your rights. Forcing me to make one is a violation of mine. This is the main reason why I don't support gay marriage being legally recognized. Just recently a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. He allowed them to buy whatever they wanted from his bakery. They could enter the facility and order something just like any of the heterosexual customers. They could even ask the baker to make customized cakes for any occasion except their wedding, because he did not support gay marriage. They could've gotten their cake made somewhere else, however he was forced by court order to make the cake which he still has not done. He has said that he is willing to be jailed for his religious beliefs if necessary, and yes, that is what he would be jailed for. I can already see the replies to my comment saying, "Noone has been jailed for their religious beliefs. You're so ignorant!" He might be jailed for practicing his beliefs. Saying that someone can think whatever they want as longas they don't do anything about it is bullshit. What if someone said that to you? Be as gay as you want as long as you don't act on it. Have all the dirty fantacies you want about other guys, but keep their dicks out of your mouth. "HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT YOU WORTHLESS BIGGOT!" Exactly. You know, one guy commented ona different video by claiming that Christians, by demanding the right to refuse service, are demanding the right to punch someone in the face. He said, "If my religion tells me to punch people in the face, then according to your logic, refusing to allow me to punch you in the face would violate my rights." It's not an exact quote, but that's close enough. That's not right though. Assaulting people is not the same as refusing to make a cake. In Massachusetts, a gay couple wanted to adopt a baby from a Christian organization. They refused. You can argue all day long about how great gay parents are. Too bad, this agency didn't believe it was a good idea for a child to be raised by gay parents, so they refused. The couple, of course, sued, and the organization was forced by court order to provide the couple with a baby. They instead stopped offering adoption services in Massachusetts. Bottum line, yes, gay marriage does restrict religious freedom.
I think you're blaming the wrong thing here. The courts are the ones making people do things against their religion. That is clearly unconstitutional. Gay marriage *itself* impacts no one's religious freedoms, because legal marriage is administered by the state and therefore secular. The couple that sued the baker are in the wrong. The courts were wrong to rule against the baker. However, their desire to marry isn't what is inherently the problem.
It's very mature of you to say that the couple suing the baker were in the wrong. There are many homosexuals who think the same way, but thay are not as vocal as the highly emotional ones who hijack a conversation in order to claim some meaningless victory in that very argument or to emotionally blackmail the person they are arguing with. They support the gay couple in this case, because they literally believe that gay people should never hear theword no, especially if it's because they are gay, but in some cases, they could actually just claim they are being discriminated against when actually they didn't get what they wanted for a different reason. I appreciate your very adult way of approaching this issue. gryfonclaw You're actually right about that. In some cases our judges are elected, so we can vote against the oneswho allow anyone to abuse discrimination law. The problem though, is that you are only technicly correct. In states where gay marriages are recognized, Christians have been consistently forced by the government to support gay marriage. This is because the recognition of homosexual marriages make this possible. Had the judge in Colorado dismissed the case against Jack Phillips, the couple involved would've taken the next logical step which would be to continue filing legal actions with higher courts until they got what they wanted, possibly even to the supreme court. If they got what they wanted there, the whole country would be affected.
+kc9cra gay marriage doesn't restrict religious freedom. There is no scripture in the bible that says to deny services to gays. NONE. You CAN be Christian, and still help your gay brother and sisters. It's nothing wrong with that. However, being "Christian" and discriminating is wrong.
Aka Joe ok, I'm going to go through all of this with you. Freedom of speech-we have a right to free speech, but we do have restrictions on hate speech. Hate speech is NOT free speech. Freedom of religion- do you know that that means we have the right to fully express our religion, AND people have the right to be free from religion. There are religions that SUPPORT gays and gay marriage. Also, we have the right to believe anything we want, but once it turns into discrimination, and injustice THAT'S when you're taking your belief into action, and that is wrong!
Best 1 "you people" spoken like an actual bigot. I will have you know that I'm not even gay, but in your selfish world, only gay people advocate for their own self-interests. I fundamentally believe in equality. Also, the facts are his evidence has been disproven. Many of the LGBT activist such as Corretta Scott King (Martin Luther King Jr wife), Harvey Milk, Dustin Lance Black, Janet Jackson, the NAACP do not support pedophilia. That argument is insulting, as it is bigoted.
Ok so if their is no such thing as orientation then why do you identitify as heterosexual? People don't choose to be gay, just like no one chooses to be color blind or have anxiety, the proof for my side is greater than the proof for your side and you have provided no evidence to support your argument. Also, explain why anyone would choose to be ostracized and bullied rather than staying straight? Please provide evidence otherwise their is no point arguing with you.
It may be restricting and invasive- but IF the govt allowed same sex marriage, it should be impossible for a same-sex marriage to be conducted by a religious figure or in a religiously sacred place, as well as by a government figure. They would have to be performed by a privately paid person with the legal registration to marry ppl. It can be done on a ship by a Capt (non military preferably), or by a random person w/ the legal allowance. Not a priest, a pastor or a judge ect ect.
Gay people, in order to be provocative and to limit freedom of religion, demand that a cake be made by a certain bakery whose owners do not want to sanction unholy, unnatural unions by baking that cake and putting two statues of men on top of it. So gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom, John. The story above is a case in point.
cufflink44 The title of this boring three minute blurb is whether gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom. The fact is that it is a threat. Recent instances have limited this freedom. Call it what you will, that is what is happening.
cufflink44 You listen to me. Everyone with a business of his own ought to have the right to refuse any person any service that he provides. That's what you call freedom. The person who is turned away can go somewhere else. You got that, Mr. Big-government Nanny-state. If I walk into a gay nightclub, should the owner have the right to refuse me? Yes, I think so. I hope he would refuse me.
cufflink44 I knew you were going to bring racism into this and commit a category mistake. This is why I baited you: to bring out your foul character and to expose your ignorance. Yes, I baited a race-baiter. Call it reverse psychology or something. To the Christian, refusing someone a service because of the color of his skin is wrong because the New Testament does not tolerate racism. The New Testament condemns homosexuality though. Therefore it is sometimes necessary for a Christian to refuse a service to homosexuals, like when they want a baker to bake them a cake with two men on top. To make a cake to celebrate what God condemns is something the Christian must not do. To make him do it limits his freedom of religion and it violates his tender conscience toward God.
TheKeikoIsALie - Bethany Symons Nothing you said refutes my interpretation of Scripture. The practice of those virtues that you mentioned is harmonious with hating what God hates: homosexual sin. No Christian ought to tolerate what the the New Testament condemns. A phobia is an irrational fear. But we have cause to fear homosexuality because homosexuals will limit our freedoms if they can get away with it. Therefore the label of homophobia cannot stick to me.
marc gabourie Why do you pretend that the word "scripture" makes everything right.. That immorality becomes moral just because the immoral act is mentioned in scripture?
Short answer: No
Long answer: The LGBT+ having basic rights isn't a "threat" to religious freedom.
- Sincerely, a LGBT+ Christian
How are you?
as straight man I agree
You do understand that feelings and love are simply chemical reactions in the brain, correct? Straight or gay, attraction is the brain's chemical reaction to another person. I don't know how you choose to have a chemical reaction occur inside of your body, but if you do, then I'm really impressed.
Proof
I hope this guy is a Christian he would send a very good example for every single one of them
How?
I'm religious and this is the argument I've been using for years! I prefer keeping my religion out of government so my government doesn't get in my religion, so no one's religious beliefs should be used to deny rights to another individual. This means only that gays would be married legally. If God is against gay marriage, it's not like gays would suddenly be married in his eyes. Being married LEGALLY has nothing to do with being married in the eyes of the church.
I'm already for same-sex marriage (and, you know, equality in general) but I find myself still watching and rewatching your videos. Such well-rounded arguments. I'm really learning. :)
Perfectly deadpan delivery. Love the dry wit.
"The phrase 'sexual preference' by itself implies choice."
maybe we have to differentiate between preference in the sense of a decision to give one objective a higher priority over another (e.g. the decision to learn for a test instead of playing computer games) and preference in the sense of 'prefering' to do something, without consideration for the possible consequences of an action.
but english is not my native language, so it is very possible that one of these definitions is just wrong ;-)
I agree w/ the exception of one thing. The phrase 'sexual preference' by itself implies choice. Its my opinion that sexual orientation or perhaps sexual inclination would be more accurate in portraying it as more as an undeniable draw instead of a choice. As for homophobia and racism being different well sure their different no two prejudices are exactly the same. The reasons are different the people are different but one thing prejudices will always have in common is that theyr'e irrational
Please make a video on the history of Marriage. It was never originally 'religious'. It did not become a holy sacrament until the 1400's, also, marriage as we know it today came from Pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes, although many areas around the world had 'marriage' in its own way. It my be useful to mention the Native American tribes who had their kind of marriages, and they had homosexual marriage, and it was respected. We had homosexual couples on this land before the Manifest Destiny Massacre.
Men having sex with other men in prison is generally not a function of men becoming sexually attracted to one another. It's about power and dominance and humiliation. So that's not an example of anyone "convincing themselves" they're gay. If you're gay, no one has to convince you. Just like if you're straight, no one has to convince you.
Trust me, I’ve supported the marriage equality movement for quite a while and know very few gay people that want to “force” churches to perform same-sex marriages. And we’ve always hoped for social acceptance of all sexual orientations, but there’s no way for us to force our opinions on you. If you want to believe that gay people are second class citizens, then go right ahead. The change needs to come from you, not us. It’s when those beliefs turn to discrimination that a line needs to be drawn.
"Marriage is a heterosexual institution. It will not work for same sex couples. It is like putting a jock strap on a woman." LMAO! That was one of best that he's come up with. And by "best" I mean - ridiculous. You actually CAN put a jock strap on a woman. My sister wears one when she plays field hockey. You can put a jock strap on a woman and gays can get married. I wonder how old Joe is. My evangelical grandma is more with it than him and she's 95. She was a flower girl at my wedding!
You believe things. You think things. You type on the internet. I am so happy for you.
spot on, mate. very well said.
I had a choice and I chose it. I could have chosen to live in the closet and be afraid of my own shadow, like you, but I chose a different path. I chose be honest and open about being gay. I don't "shove it in people's faces" as you types like to accuse us of, but I certainly don't pretend I'm something I'm not to please others. You should try it sometime. Maybe you'd find some happiness.
Myabe in 2012 people could have said it with a straight face but you can't now.
Interesting in Australia last Sat May 22 when the previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison who is a strong Pentecostal wanted to pass religious freedom legislation allowing the church to discriminate on gay marriage and many other issues. Had it past, gay Christians would also have had religious freedom. We had a Federal election and he lost by a large margin. In 2017 the government had a postal survey on Same Sex Marriage and 61.9% of Australians voted for it. I am gay and was a Baptist Pastor.
Damn! I thought I'd never get to the base of this debate!!!
"We, as a society, have rejected homosexuality"
That's what we said 50 years ago about racial integration. Do you even hear yourself?
Did u just compare race to sodomy?
@@mariorizkallah5383 lmao wut? Did you just say people loving each other is immoral? Lmao what a joke. Not all homosexuals have sex, get over it 🤡. Ever heard of the Asexuals? Just stfu.
My body works very, very well with my husband's body Joe. :)
-It is defined as how I say. Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexual couples. The CHRISTIAN view of Marriage is between one man and women. I implied that in my last comment.
-You don't need marriage to build a family.
The Kardashian bit made me love Corvino's videos even more.
And I choose to be as I was born. Gay. You weren't born a bigot or a christian. That is how you chose to be. I don't care really. If that's how you choose to live your life, so be it. Just keep it to yourself.
even if it is matter of choice, how is it immoral?
Anybody that owns a business should be able to choose who they provide service to. If you don't agree with gay marriage, you shouldn't HAVE to bake them a cake. This is where we determine that gay marriage threatens our religious freedom, because that gay couple is then going to file a lawsuit and shut that business down rather than simply going to another bakery for their cake. This is completely stripping the bakery of its religious freedom.
Or you could, I don't know....Just bake the fucking cake. I've worked in the public sector and served PLENTY of people I didn't like---but that doesn't give me the right to deny them public service. As a bakery, your sole function is to sell cakes, not be the moral police. Are you going to discriminate against couples of different religions? Races? Nationalities?
Also, if these "poor" business owners are being forced to do things that violate their religions, why do they only throw a fuss over gay couples? I've yet to hear a bakery make a stink about providing a cake to a couple that aren't Christian, or even people that have been convicted of theft and violent crimes.
Fine. Allow the baker to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples. However, it should then be compulsory for such bakers to have their rejection of gays clearly stated in their shop window. Then I know their sales policy before I step over the threshold. My reaction as a straight person? I wouldn't set foot in the bakers. To me they would be bigots and therefore not deserving of my custom.
On second thoughts, I think I am wrong. Because Bible-believin' shopkeepers in the Deep South would quickly dust down their signs saying No Blacks. Don't ya just LOVE the folks in the Bible Belt? As religious as hell and as backward as fuck.
Sarah d
I hate to say this, but yeah. Your labor is your own, and if you are a private business (which is not the public sector by any stretch of the imagination) providing a non-essential good or service, you absolutely have the right to determine who you serve. It would be unconstitutional to mandate otherwise. I'm not saying I agree with the baker's personal decision to decline their request to bake them a wedding cake, but to be fair he did offer to make them any other kind of cake, so you can't even truly say he was denying them some form of baked good.
We all can make choices in a free society. And in a free society, we all must live with those choices. In this case, the baker might lose some business as a consequence of exercising his personal objection to something that he sees as 'immoral'. And the gay couple will have to find a wedding cake somewhere else, and they will because there are just as many businesses out there willing to make that cake for them. That's what should happen in a free society .
Look, one of the main issues w/ this is the fact that being gay isn't wholly considered morally or societaly acceptable, and many people want it to stay that way.
Just as it's not illegal to be gay, but still considered wrong as all other types of non-monogamous, non-heterosexuality.
All sorts of things are legal, but are still considered bad or something that should be kept under the rug, and gay marriage can be one of those things just fine.
Totally agree. Except for that shot he takes at churches performing abortions at 1:06.
I think that right there is the flaw in the argument you’re using: marriage is NOT defined by the church. Civil marriages have existed for years, and a civil marriage is separate entirely from religion as the government is (or should be, at least,) separate from religion. Furthermore, marriage existed before Christianity/other religions, as a way to unite sexually involved pairs, so like it or not, marriage is not a religious institution.
John, you should look to my boss Lon Newman of FPHS in Wausau. He wrote extensively about Constitutionality and Religious Freedom in regards to Reproductive Health Care.
3 mariages in my country. Customary(the families, villages, tribe thing), the State one and The Catholic one
Do you think freedom of religion in the US contitution gives religious videographers the right to discriminate against being hired by porn producers to film people engaging in sex? Do you think people in the US should be forced to do things they don't want to do?
great videos
I love the end with that Kardashian fiasco.
Also, exactly what logic supports the idea that everyone is straight? If that were true, we’d all keep to the status quo. It’s just a fact of life: people will conform to the norm when they are able. And as for the social acceptance bit, like I said before, that has to come from people like you. Gay people will still go about living their lives with or without you, and given time, we hope that more and more of you will realize how little bearing same sex relationships have on society.
Your comment was one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. My best friend is a lesbian and she wants to marry a girl one day and grow old with her. In what way does that affect you?
Where will this lead? What about 3-ways? Most gay couples I know allow it. There's no stopping laws to allow all sorts of relationships. I agree on domestic partnerships, but "marriage" is between man & woman.
The bans on same sex marriage exist because of the religious bias of the people who passed these laws. As for the people who have voted against it. It is hypocritical to define the parameters of another’s relationship based on your own religious beliefs. If the government grants certain rights to straight couples through marriage and restricts marriage to gay people, that is discrimination.
great video
And what's wrong with redefining marriage? We redefine things all the time, how will gay marriage hurt anyone?
i'd like to pass a law that introduces mandatory intelligence tests, and people that score below 80 or so get a tattoo on the forehead that says 'dumb fuck'. that should save a lot of people a lot of time.
im sorry but that comment about morman being a cult and still treating the Romney's as married, omg i couldn't stop cracking up. i normally don't laugh when religion is mentioned as mine teaches respect and understanding for all (no not christian or morman or any of that) but i agree i wish more people would understand same sex marraige
I have no idea how you misheard "bar mitzvah" as "abortion".
Mildred Loving disagrees with you. So do the majority of Americans.
“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others, especially if it denies people’s civil rights.” - Mildred Loving, speaking out for marriage equality on June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia announcement.
"There have been those few odd ball cultures that have tried gay marriage" odd ball cultures like greece, china and the roman empire (that covered most of europe). all of which belonged to the most highly developed cultures of their time.
"it is not a violation of the first amendment"
quote from the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" i never said christianity is a violation of the first amendment, but making laws of christian doctrines is.
Your first point is moot. The definition of marriage is what I said. You thinking of the biblical definition of marriage. And that definition is not universal.I never said a lack of a mother or a father in the sense of having one parent. I'm saying lesbian/gay parents can raise a child just as good as a heterosexual couple. The qualities required to be raise a good family(Financial, Repsect, Trustworthiness etc..) are not exclusive to heterosexual couple.
Shorter lifespans, higher suicide rate, or let's just group it all up as depression, can all be explained by people getting harassed due to intolerance.
No, lying to yourself is pretty much impossible by definition, and you can't convince yourself of something. Beliefs and values are not conscious choices.
My response couldn't fit in one comment. Furthermore I have no problem with polygamy. It doesn't affect me if multiple marriage is legal. Comparing same sex marriage to marrying a 12 year old is like comparing it to marrying a dog. Those two things are incapable of consent whereas homosexual adults are.
Homosexuality is not deviant behavior any more than left-handedness is deviant behavior. In fact, left-handedness is not a behavior. It is a trait, which results in left-handed behavior. Therefore, we must make laws that give them the same rights that straight people have. Period.
What if the religion in question approved of same-sex relationships? Are you going to deny that religion the right to practice part of their faith?
The question isn't whether you currently want to have sex with another man. The question is if you're willing to apply the same logic to yourself. Could you change your "thinking and feelings on the behavior" simply by choosing to? That you misunderstood the question twice in a row shows you haven't thought it through.
Also, now you say gay sex isn't sex, gay marriage isn't marriage, a heterosexual's sexual preference isn't a sexual preference, and a white horse is not a horse. What did I miss?
Liberals opposed slavery. Liberals opposed segregation. Liberals oppose anti-gay legislation. Liberals oppose legislation diminishing a woman's rights to make her own decisions about reproductive health issues. Liberals support access to voting without unnecessary ways to discourage voting. Liberals support equality. Tolerance for the intolerant is not a liberal value. You got us there!
+SynchroTotal
I love your reply.
He said bar mitzpha (sp?), not abortion...
And then you’d force people to “feel” a certain way? Is that not a breeching of human rights? Aside from the fact that biological studies have show strong evidence for a connection between fetal development and sexual orientation, it is plain hypocrisy to define another’s definition of love based on your beliefs. I am gay and have the same capacity to romantically love a man as you do a woman. Personally, I can’t get angry at someone on the internet, but what you’ve said is egocentric hypocrisy.
Things are only wrong if they cause negative affects for others. Note that theft, homicide, and arson are generally considered wrong. Whereas victimless crimes, prostitution, drugs (which is not necessarily victimless), and other crimes are debatable. The pure truth is that you are oppressing others from doing something that doesn't matter to you or affect you. I'm calling the BS card right now, because you don't know her. If you saw her when she speaks of marriage you would know she wants it.
Yeah I'm sure that's not a new one for you.
That makes no sense. Why is something moral when done with the opposite gender, but immoral when the exact same thing is done with the same gender?
You know, such wide proclamations about large swaths of people are why anyone gets labeled a bigot.
Legalizing gay marriage does not redefine anything. Marriage by definition is a social union of legal contract between two partners. That's it. If the churches don't want to marry gay couples, then that's cool. It's their church and their beliefs. But denying their rights to marriage outside the church is not only discrimination but a violation of the separation of church and state. Gay marriage does NOT effect anybody.
How?
"1) As I recall that whole gay marriage thing did not work out well for the Roman Empire."
xD xD xD NOW you're killing me. homosexuality destroyed the roman empire? i'd really like to see your reasoning on that.
2+3) what's 'perverted' is a matter of perspective. how do you justify that word? what is it that makes homosexuality 'perverted'? seriously, please answer that question.
Is homosexual "marriage" a threat to religious freedom? Ask Jack Phillips.
If Jack Phillips doesn't want to follow nondiscrimination laws, he has an option. He can stop serving the public, and start a private club.
"We, as a society, have rejected homosexuality." I guessed you missed the part where the world around you changed. The majority of Americans now support gays and marriage equality. With the younger set, approval is at an all time high, in excess of 70%. Minnesota rejected a BAN on gay marriage and then passed a law that legalizes it. It was put on the ballot in 2012 is three states and the majority of the voters in all three states voted in favor of it. You're living in the past Joe. :)
PS: if anything, it would be a re-re-definition. christianity turned marriage into a man-woman thing. but christianity has not invented marriage, nor has it a monopol on it or should have influence on legal marriage, unless you disagree with the first amendment of your constitution.
By evidence I meant actual scientific articles, explain why there have been homosexuals throughout all history. saying someone is wrong just for not adhering to the norm. also your argument assume homosexuals do damage. Please explain why homosexuality is wrong, even if it is a choice.
Attraction is not a behavior. You can't force yourself to be attracted to someone.
There are holes in your logic big enough to drive a truck through, yet you keep on talking as if you have something to stand on.
False marketing I suppose :P
Ok, so since you've yet to prove homosexuality is a choice, then it can be safely said that because their is no benefit in your opinion that gay marriage is a necessity in order to promote equality. Also, this guy also has a video on the differences of polygamy and gay marriage.
He didn't answer the question.
people who are into little kids are called 'pedophiles', and this is not a voluntary condition either. however, there are solid reasons to condemn the kind of behaviour pedophiles engage in. where are your reasons to condemn homosexuality? and who are you to decide what's 'perverted'? and fyi: marriage is not an invention of the church, so the church doesn't get to define its meaning.
Why is it always guys who have words like "common sense" in their screen names usually don't have any?
Did you really wear the same shirt and tie making video from time to time...or you made them one off in a day
I don't even feel like arguing this anymore. I'm wasting my time. You obviously let your religion get in the way of your rational sensible thinking.
The fact you are appealing to the Roman Empire for a definition of marriage makes my point sufficiently.
-
how so? it shows that same-sex marriage is probably as old as marriage itself.
The Roman Empire fell for many reasons.
-
correct, and homosexuality was certainly not one of them.
It is not the way we are intended to reproduce as a species.
-
so your homophobia is based on religion, or at least the pseudo-religious belief that we are 'intended' to do sth., such as reproduce.
Why are you afriad for it to be redefined?
sexual behavior and sexual orientation are 2 different things. confusing them it's a huge mistake.
The Kim Kardashian bit was great!
The pity's all directed at you, dear Joe.
if sexual orientation is myth, then heterosexuality is a sexual preference which mean it is a choice two.
That's your problem. You're old. You think like an old person and you're very set in your ways. The younger generation, thankfully, isn't like you.
You think I care if you or anyone else accepts me or my marriage? You might worry about such things but I don't. That's the thing. I've learned not to care what others think. The only reason I bother will trolls like you is that I want younger gay people to know that there's a life out there to be had, living proudly and openly. It gets better.
Marriage isn't defined by someone's sexual preferences. Or is it? Those on your side of the argument used to say that it was only for procreation, until we pointed out that it wasn't. Let's just say that marriage was solely about procreation. Were that the case, it would be about sexual preference. Man likes woman - man prefers woman - man and woman make baby. In my case it'd be: man likes man - man prefers man - man and man try to make baby. Fail. Try again. We're "practicing" homosexuals.
People are also not supposed to fly in airplanes. We don't have wings, after all. It's not natural.
Go ahead with that line of reasoning if you want to. It is a dead end filled with idiotic conclusions, which seem to be all you have to offer.
Thanks Joe! :))))
project much?
Common sense joe? Really and you say that
Are to.
But if force Christian private business even one pay by tax payer it both discrimination for the gay and discrimination to the Christian force private business are own pay by tax player now witch one is more important if you asked me is the one for the Christian because a frame of religion of the constitution right it is not a constitutional right for gay marriage it right fro human cane but not A constitutional right like for religion
Wrong again Joe. Civil unions = separate but not equal. I've been married to my husband for 10 years, and we've been together for more than 25 years. We don't care if you or society accepts our relationship, nor are we trying to "punish" you for beliefs. You don't accept me, and I don't accept people like you who are living your chosen lifestyle. We were born gay. You weren't born a christian. That was your choice. It's not up to me to judge, no matter how misguided and deluded I think you are.
You troll
I just gave you objective evidence, if that's not good enough for you then you're willfully accepting ignorance to fit your world view, if "feelings" cannot by tested then why do we have the entire science of psychology which studies these feelings? You really think the majority of scientific authorities are lying to you? That's unbelievably ignorant...You know why that happens? Because being gay takes a while to come to terms with, especially with the stigma that comes with it.
Okay, no. "Christian Marriage" is defined as between man and woman/s.Marriage is defined by the BIBLE as being between Man and Woman. And no, you don't need a father and a mother if you want a successful family. The qualities required to raise a good family are not exclusive to heterosexual couples.
Please provide credible sources that give credence to your claim, otherwise you're choosing willful ignorance to support your own agenda.
Why should all "non-monagamous, non-heterosexual" relationships be considered wrong? Who are you to tell others how they should live their lives and to what moral degree their choices be deemed? Do you also think that racial segregation is good, because living as a person of color is "wrong?" If there's something you don't agree with, then don't practice it. But opinions like yours are one of the major societal flaws in our society, and a dangerous psychological path to follow.
Bottum line, yes, gay marriage does restrict religious freedom.
By saying that gay marriage does not undermine religious freedom, you have actually proven the opposite. You have simply redefined religious freedom to fit your opinion.
You're right that people tend to confuse legal marriage with religious marriage. People seem to think that just because they have the right to get civilly married, they now have the right to force everyone to support them.
I'm not infringing on anybody's freedom simply for refusing to do business with them unless that business involves their immediate safety such as some life saving medical procedure. In that case, if someone else is available to perform the treatment, no problem. Refusing to make a wedding cake does not infringe on your rights. Forcing me to make one is a violation of mine.
This is the main reason why I don't support gay marriage being legally recognized. Just recently a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. He allowed them to buy whatever they wanted from his bakery. They could enter the facility and order something just like any of the heterosexual customers. They could even ask the baker to make customized cakes for any occasion except their wedding, because he did not support gay marriage. They could've gotten their cake made somewhere else, however he was forced by court order to make the cake which he still has not done. He has said that he is willing to be jailed for his religious beliefs if necessary, and yes, that is what he would be jailed for.
I can already see the replies to my comment saying, "Noone has been jailed for their religious beliefs. You're so ignorant!" He might be jailed for practicing his beliefs. Saying that someone can think whatever they want as longas they don't do anything about it is bullshit. What if someone said that to you? Be as gay as you want as long as you don't act on it. Have all the dirty fantacies you want about other guys, but keep their dicks out of your mouth. "HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT YOU WORTHLESS BIGGOT!" Exactly.
You know, one guy commented ona different video by claiming that Christians, by demanding the right to refuse service, are demanding the right to punch someone in the face. He said, "If my religion tells me to punch people in the face, then according to your logic, refusing to allow me to punch you in the face would violate my rights." It's not an exact quote, but that's close enough.
That's not right though. Assaulting people is not the same as refusing to make a cake.
In Massachusetts, a gay couple wanted to adopt a baby from a Christian organization. They refused.
You can argue all day long about how great gay parents are. Too bad, this agency didn't believe it was a good idea for a child to be raised by gay parents, so they refused. The couple, of course, sued, and the organization was forced by court order to provide the couple with a baby. They instead stopped offering adoption services in Massachusetts.
Bottum line, yes, gay marriage does restrict religious freedom.
I think you're blaming the wrong thing here. The courts are the ones making people do things against their religion. That is clearly unconstitutional. Gay marriage *itself* impacts no one's religious freedoms, because legal marriage is administered by the state and therefore secular. The couple that sued the baker are in the wrong. The courts were wrong to rule against the baker. However, their desire to marry isn't what is inherently the problem.
It's very mature of you to say that the couple suing the baker were in the wrong. There are many homosexuals who think the same way, but thay are not as vocal as the highly emotional ones who hijack a conversation in order to claim some meaningless victory in that very argument or to emotionally blackmail the person they are arguing with. They support the gay couple in this case, because they literally believe that gay people should never hear theword no, especially if it's because they are gay, but in some cases, they could actually just claim they are being discriminated against when actually they didn't get what they wanted for a different reason. I appreciate your very adult way of approaching this issue.
gryfonclaw You're actually right about that. In some cases our judges are elected, so we can vote against the oneswho allow anyone to abuse discrimination law. The problem though, is that you are only technicly correct.
In states where gay marriages are recognized, Christians have been consistently forced by the government to support gay marriage. This is because the recognition of homosexual marriages make this possible. Had the judge in Colorado dismissed the case against Jack Phillips, the couple involved would've taken the next logical step which would be to continue filing legal actions with higher courts until they got what they wanted, possibly even to the supreme court. If they got what they wanted there, the whole country would be affected.
+kc9cra gay marriage doesn't restrict religious freedom. There is no scripture in the bible that says to deny services to gays. NONE. You CAN be Christian, and still help your gay brother and sisters. It's nothing wrong with that. However, being "Christian" and discriminating is wrong.
Aka Joe ok, I'm going to go through all of this with you. Freedom of speech-we have a right to free speech, but we do have restrictions on hate speech. Hate speech is NOT free speech. Freedom of religion- do you know that that means we have the right to fully express our religion, AND people have the right to be free from religion. There are religions that SUPPORT gays and gay marriage. Also, we have the right to believe anything we want, but once it turns into discrimination, and injustice THAT'S when you're taking your belief into action, and that is wrong!
Best 1 "you people" spoken like an actual bigot. I will have you know that I'm not even gay, but in your selfish world, only gay people advocate for their own self-interests. I fundamentally believe in equality. Also, the facts are his evidence has been disproven. Many of the LGBT activist such as Corretta Scott King (Martin Luther King Jr wife), Harvey Milk, Dustin Lance Black, Janet Jackson, the NAACP do not support pedophilia. That argument is insulting, as it is bigoted.
Ok so if their is no such thing as orientation then why do you identitify as heterosexual? People don't choose to be gay, just like no one chooses to be color blind or have anxiety, the proof for my side is greater than the proof for your side and you have provided no evidence to support your argument. Also, explain why anyone would choose to be ostracized and bullied rather than staying straight? Please provide evidence otherwise their is no point arguing with you.
Why? Seriously, why? I'm sure you'll find that there's no logical to dehumanise people in such a manner, other then you being a homophobe.
It may be restricting and invasive- but IF the govt allowed same sex marriage, it should be impossible for a same-sex marriage to be conducted by a religious figure or in a religiously sacred place, as well as by a government figure. They would have to be performed by a privately paid person with the legal registration to marry ppl. It can be done on a ship by a Capt (non military preferably), or by a random person w/ the legal allowance. Not a priest, a pastor or a judge ect ect.
wow, straw-man arguments, and horrible assumptions... your logic is bad and you should feel bad!
Why not domestic partnerships? I would think more folk would accept that.
IgnoranceJoe
Gay people, in order to be provocative and to limit freedom of religion, demand that a cake be made by a certain bakery whose owners do not want to sanction unholy, unnatural unions by baking that cake and putting two statues of men on top of it. So gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom, John. The story above is a case in point.
cufflink44 The title of this boring three minute blurb is whether gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom. The fact is that it is a threat. Recent instances have limited this freedom. Call it what you will, that is what is happening.
cufflink44 You listen to me. Everyone with a business of his own ought to have the right to refuse any person any service that he provides. That's what you call freedom. The person who is turned away can go somewhere else. You got that, Mr. Big-government Nanny-state. If I walk into a gay nightclub, should the owner have the right to refuse me? Yes, I think so. I hope he would refuse me.
cufflink44 I knew you were going to bring racism into this and commit a category mistake. This is why I baited you: to bring out your foul character and to expose your ignorance. Yes, I baited a race-baiter. Call it reverse psychology or something. To the Christian, refusing someone a service because of the color of his skin is wrong because the New Testament does not tolerate racism. The New Testament condemns homosexuality though. Therefore it is sometimes necessary for a Christian to refuse a service to homosexuals, like when they want a baker to bake them a cake with two men on top. To make a cake to celebrate what God condemns is something the Christian must not do. To make him do it limits his freedom of religion and it violates his tender conscience toward God.
TheKeikoIsALie - Bethany Symons Nothing you said refutes my interpretation of Scripture. The practice of those virtues that you mentioned is harmonious with hating what God hates: homosexual sin. No Christian ought to tolerate what the the New Testament condemns. A phobia is an irrational fear. But we have cause to fear homosexuality because homosexuals will limit our freedoms if they can get away with it. Therefore the label of homophobia cannot stick to me.
marc gabourie Why do you pretend that the word "scripture" makes everything right.. That immorality becomes moral just because the immoral act is mentioned in scripture?