LGBT Agenda & 1st Amend.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.[/quote]

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?[/quote]

These are two different things in light of Natural Law, alas the foundation of our infrastructure as a nation.[/quote]

Can you explain this a bit more?[/quote]

What color a man is and his sexuality are two different things. One pertains to his end the other is an accident to his being. Discriminating against a man based on an accident (something that has nothing to do with his substance) is absolutely wrong. [/quote]

What are your sources for this conclusion? I was under the impression that it was more genetic, like being left handed. Oh and did you use the word “accident” to describe someone being born black? Is that what God calls it too “OOPS… another n*****”?

22

Err…“accident” doesn’t have to carry negative connotations. Like the expression an “accident of birth.” By an “accident of birth” I was born rich/poor etc.

23

I love how increasing diversity and tolerance has now come to mean, “outlawing beliefs and practices I disagree with.” Oh the irony.

25

The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS

26

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many peopleâ??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.

28

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many peopleâ??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?

29

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many people�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]

And that is the standard you would like to see applied to all laws passed by Congress?

Solid.

30

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many people�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]

So basically, you are against all laws. I guess we should keep “thou shalt not kill” out of government because some crazy guy claiming to have gotten it from God said it. There is no way to prove any moral belief as correct as none of it exists in reality.

31

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage is not a religious institution.

[/quote]

Yes it is.

Regards,

BC

P.S. I didn’t want to waste your time with non-sequitors so I just gave my conclusion.[/quote]

It’s not a non-sequitar it’s completely to the point.

People were getting married long before any of the abrahamic religions were founded. Like a thousand years before. Do some research. [/quote]

So, you’re saying that the abrahamic religions were the first religions?

32

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many people�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]

Why exactly should my morality, based on the bible be excluded from government, when your morality, based on pop-culture and self derived principals be allowed? Prove to me yours is right.

33

No. And just ignore it if they do carry this out.

34

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many people�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]

Why exactly should my morality, based on the bible be excluded from government, when your morality, based on pop-culture and self derived principals be allowed? Prove to me yours is right.[/quote]

My morality isn’t based on “pop-culture”

I can prove to you something is wrong by pointing to the outcome.

If someone has a ridiculous unsubstantiated personal belief such as eating broccoli is immoral, I can say - “hey broccoli is nutritious and promote good health of human beings, look at these facts.”

While the person with the deep religious convictions against broccoli consumption can just say “I think it’s immoral.”

Secondly, why would you even want a removal of separation of church? What if they didn’t base it on your personal brand of Christianity?

Are you a Catholic? If not, would you want your laws based on Catholicism and the Catholic Bible? You have to understand separation of church and state doesn’t just protect atheists but EVERYONE.

35

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage is not a religious institution.

[/quote]

Yes it is.

Regards,

BC

P.S. I didn’t want to waste your time with non-sequitors so I just gave my conclusion.[/quote]

It’s not a non-sequitar it’s completely to the point.

People were getting married long before any of the abrahamic religions were founded. Like a thousand years before. Do some research. [/quote]

So, you’re saying that the abrahamic religions were the first religions? [/quote]

No, just to put it in perspective. I’m sorry Chris, but you haven’t researched this topic. Please read up on the history of marriage

36

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to. That’s about as slippery a slope as I’ve ever seen, and twice as steep. [/quote]

Interesting. Does that include racial discrimination in your opinion?

I know and you know that you don’t know how to take your shoes off when you come inside, so it is a relevant question. Further down that slippery slope might come the burakumin. [/quote]

No one should have to rent their property to anyone they don’t want to.

No qualifications.

You know that I am not a racist. But that doesn’t matter. If I don’t want to hire somebody, or to take on a tenant in one of my properties, created or procured with my own capital, by the sweat of my own brow, then no one, ever, should force me to take on anyone I do not want to. My reasons for not hiring or taking that person on, racist or otherwise, are beside the point.

Yeah, I understand the implications, but I think that, one the whole. society would work a whole lot better if we just stuck to my rule and let people work things out for themselves.
[/quote]

While I am against forcing churches to rent their property to gays, I can see the reasoning for this type of policy in certain situations. Before policies like affirmative action came into being, there was a time where blacks couldn’t rent/buy a place outside of a black neighbourhood. Sometimes these policies are justified IMO.[/quote]

If it was a few Churches I wouldn’t think it was that big of a deal but I could also see in some conservative town all the churches siding together to collectively not allow gay marriages on their property. Could a group of churches or businesses legally do the same thing with non-whites?[/quote]

These are two different things in light of Natural Law, alas the foundation of our infrastructure as a nation.[/quote]

Can you explain this a bit more?[/quote]

What color a man is and his sexuality are two different things. One pertains to his end the other is an accident to his being. Discriminating against a man based on an accident (something that has nothing to do with his substance) is absolutely wrong. [/quote]

What are your sources for this conclusion? I was under the impression that it was more genetic, like being left handed. Oh and did you use the word “accident” to describe someone being born black? Is that what God calls it too “OOPS… another n*****”?[/quote]

Accident in the metaphysical sense. As in not pertaining to substance of their being, i.e. has no effect on their personhood.

What are my sources? Well, pick up an Aristotelean metaphysics book. Mostly only racists conclude the color of a man’s skin is not an accident to his being. Studying genetics shows that this is genetically true, as well.

However, assuming that the argument, “I was born this way.” Is true, and sense procreation is an end of human sexuality, I’d have to assume that homosexual’s substance is fundamentally different since they didn’t choose. If all is right, this brings into wonder if homosexuals are persons. Since they are because the actual substance of personhood is having an intellect and free will. So, I almost fully reject the notion that this is substantial part of a person, rather than an accident (one’s attraction, not one’s sexuality, one’s sexuality is based on one’s sex: cock or vagina). However, the marriage has a substance, the Church being an accident of the marriage speaks nothing of the substance of the Church, we have to figure out whether this marriage is a marriage. So, what is substantial to a marriage?

Well, two things are marriages end: the raising and protecting of biological children and the happiness of the parents through stability and other means. Homosexual unions remove this first substantial matter from the equation: procreative (I won’t argue about happiness, though I reject the notion that a homosexual union can fulfill the latter part as is meant), and they also remove the form: male and female. So, it lacks the substantial form and matter of a marriage. So, this is entirely not a marriage. However, can a Church reject this union of sorts?

Yes, because of two things: they are not rejecting based on accidents, being non-white, but because it is fundamentally not a marriage in their view point and would be morally hazardous to allow on their property. Second, forcing them goes against the first freedoms of man, i.e. freedom of religion, press, speech, &c.

So, no it is not the same as not allowing non-whites to get married in their Church.

37

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

Yes, that is the calling card of liberals. The first amendment allows for the people to vote their morals, it disallows government to prevent people from voting based on their morals.

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many peopleâ??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

Taking my thunder I see. :wink:

39

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many people�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]

So, you’re going to ask every person at the voting booth to give an argument, based on reality, to be allowed to vote so?

40

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.

CS[/quote]

The church is a large part of many people�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]

We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]

So, you’re going to ask every person at the voting booth to give an argument, based on reality, to be allowed to vote so?[/quote]

No Chris, I’m talking about in the forming public policy and laws.