Rick Warren On Homosexuality

[thesometimesaint]

I am against imposing on businesses my beliefs about who they should or shouldn't serve. What about you?

 

I am also against imposing on businesses my beliefs about what events they should or shouldn't serve. Are you in favor of a business being able to refuse to cater a Klu Klux Klan rally?

 

 

First of all, charitable tax status isn't the same as taking public money. Second,  the charitable tax status is in relation to the adoption services, and not the religion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think we need laws to protect individuals from certain business practices. A charter(license) to do business in a state is a privilege granted by the state. That/Any business must comply with the laws of that state. The KKK is an outlawed organization there is no obligation under law to provide any service/product to the KKK.

 

The charitable tax status of the Catholic church was never in question. They provided a service for a fee. The city of Washington DC paid the fee to subsidize the cost to the Catholic church. I, as a citizen, am under no obligation to subsidize any religion, even my own. I can't be arrested for not paying tithing.

[wenglund]

I request that you be a little more descriptive in what you mean by religious freedoms.

 

It is your line, not mine. You are the one who needs to be a little more descriptive.

 

 

 

I suppose if someone claims their religion suggests that they refuse service to a jewish person because he is jewish, well that's a problem.

 

What if an LDS catering business doesn't want to cater an anti-Mormon convention?

 

 

 

What? I have no idea why anyone should be forced to patronize certain businesses.

 

So, if certain customers refuse to shop at a Jewish person's store because he is Jewish, they shouldn't be forced to shop there against their will? But, not vice verse?  What is the rationale behind the double standard?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 10, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I think we need laws to protect individuals from certain business practices. A charter(license) to do business in a state is a privilege granted by the state. That/Any business must comply with the laws of that state. The KKK is an outlawed organization there is no obligation under law to provide any service/product to the KKK.

 

The charitable tax status of the Catholic church was never in question. They provided a service for a fee. The city of Washington DC paid the fee to subsidize the cost to the Catholic church. I, as a citizen, am under no obligation to subsidize any religion, even my own. I can't be arrested for not paying tithing.

 

I didn't expect that you would get the points.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I didn't expect that you would get the points.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I didn't expect that you would get the points. Now lets get onto the merits and demerits of our respective position.

[EllenMaksoud]

I have to ask if gay marriage becomes the law of the land for each state, how would that deprive the Church of religious freedom?  I cannot see that connection at all.  The church afterall, in theory at least, can deny marrying gays through it's clergy, or the Church can still preach that homosexual activity is against the laws of God. 

Oh, but the gay activists will not stop with that. I know a few that are after TWD (Total World Domination). Some say that conservative Christian groups are paranoid. You may want to evaluate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman. And I am approached fairly regularly to join one group or another. I comes as a great surprise to some that I am firmly committed to the GA of the church to prayerfully decide how to handle these issues.

 

It is my concern that they will keep pushing until the First Amendment to the Constitution is greatly weakened and they start forcing churches to do SSM and other things. Now you may think that I am blowing smoke but I have talked to "certain" Mormons that are concerned about that also. And I have talked to members of the gay community and younger, educated Americans who have told me that they do not believe in the Constitution. Such radicalism is fairly common in universities around the country.

 

And, have you forgotten that early Mormons were systematically deprived of the benefits of the First Amendment? The challenge against Polygamy should have been on the basis of proven abuses, not what ever they used as a reason to oppose it. I would really like to hear from an Attorney in regards to the legality of the denial of First Amendment rights to the Mormons.  The abuses of some of  the groups have been Media circuses, while I surmise that other groups exist without complaint, just a suspicion.

 

I know that Muslim and non-Mormon people do it at times and I have seen it. I am not defending the morality of the practice but the legal challenges have been trashy in my opinion.

 

As to a CFR on any of this, if one is put I will withdraw from the discussion

Edited December 11, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[rockpond]

And, have you forgotten that early Mormons were systematically deprived of the benefits of the First Amendment? The challenge against Polygamy should have been on the basis of proven abuses, not what ever they used as a reason to oppose it. I would really like to hear from an Attorney in regards to the legality of the denial of First Amendment rights to the Mormons.

I believe that early Mormons were denied their first amendment right to practice polygamy for much the same reason that we now have fought to deny marriage equality for gay couples. 19th century Americans didn't want the Mormons redefining marriage. We lost. And now the abused have become the abusers.

[EllenMaksoud]

I believe that early Mormons were denied their first amendment right to practice polygamy for much the same reason that we now have fought to deny marriage equality for gay couples. 19th century Americans didn't want the Mormons redefining marriage. We lost. And now the abused have become the abusers.

This is a matter for much thought. It is fairly certain that in the OT, polygamy may have been the normal way to pursue marriage. Somehow that changed, but I have not thought about when. I think it was before Jesus Christ. Then in the NT Paul seemed to make a point of it. I have heard stories that advocate both sides. Paul said that one of the qualifications for a deacon was a man of one wife. Was it a moral issue or did it simply make a man too busy to do other things if he had several wives. Of course the Ev seem to make every little thing a moral issue including plucking your eyebrows.

 

I know more than one person whose grandfather was a polygamist, and have been told that some women liked it because the ones that wanted to could more easily travel to do educate, and participate in politics.

 

Back on subject, I believe that some of the gay activists are using SSM as a subterfuge. I think they mean to destroy this and other churches. Recently I heard someone saying, "Accept me or I will hurt you". There is not much doubt in my mind what they meant by that.

[stemelbow]

So, if certain customers refuse to shop at a Jewish person's store because he is Jewish, they shouldn't be forced to shop there against their will? But, not vice verse?  What is the rationale behind the double standard?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

People can't be forced to buy things.  There is no double standard.  You are trying to compare apples and oranges. 

[stemelbow]

Oh, but the gay activists will not stop with that. I know a few that are after TWD (Total World Domination). Some say that conservative Christian groups are paranoid. You may want to evaluate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman. And I am approached fairly regularly to join one group or another. I comes as a great surprise to some that I am firmly committed to the GA of the church to prayerfully decide how to handle these issues.

 

It is my concern that they will keep pushing until the First Amendment to the Constitution is greatly weakened and they start forcing churches to do SSM and other things. Now you may think that I am blowing smoke but I have talked to "certain" Mormons that are concerned about that also. And I have talked to members of the gay community and younger, educated Americans who have told me that they do not believe in the Constitution. Such radicalism is fairly common in universities around the country.

 

And, have you forgotten that early Mormons were systematically deprived of the benefits of the First Amendment? The challenge against Polygamy should have been on the basis of proven abuses, not what ever they used as a reason to oppose it. I would really like to hear from an Attorney in regards to the legality of the denial of First Amendment rights to the Mormons.  The abuses of some of  the groups have been Media circuses, while I surmise that other groups exist without complaint, just a suspicion.

 

I know that Muslim and non-Mormon people do it at times and I have seen it. I am not defending the morality of the practice but the legal challenges have been trashy in my opinion.

 

As to a CFR on any of this, if one is put I will withdraw from the discussion

 

Fear is the driving force behind opposition to same sex marriage.  There is nothing to fear but fear itself.  There is no serious effort to dominate the world.  This type of fear seems to be equivalent of people fearing Mormons and fighting for the Church's destruction worried Mormons are going to take over the world.   Its all very unfounded.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, but the gay activists will not stop with that. I know a few that are after TWD (Total World Domination). Some say that conservative Christian groups are paranoid. You may want to evaluate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman. And I am approached fairly regularly to join one group or another. I comes as a great surprise to some that I am firmly committed to the GA of the church to prayerfully decide how to handle these issues.

 

It is my concern that they will keep pushing until the First Amendment to the Constitution is greatly weakened and they start forcing churches to do SSM and other things. Now you may think that I am blowing smoke but I have talked to "certain" Mormons that are concerned about that also. And I have talked to members of the gay community and younger, educated Americans who have told me that they do not believe in the Constitution. Such radicalism is fairly common in universities around the country.

 

And, have you forgotten that early Mormons were systematically deprived of the benefits of the First Amendment? The challenge against Polygamy should have been on the basis of proven abuses, not what ever they used as a reason to oppose it. I would really like to hear from an Attorney in regards to the legality of the denial of First Amendment rights to the Mormons.  The abuses of some of  the groups have been Media circuses, while I surmise that other groups exist without complaint, just a suspicion.

 

I know that Muslim and non-Mormon people do it at times and I have seen it. I am not defending the morality of the practice but the legal challenges have been trashy in my opinion.

 

As to a CFR on any of this, if one is put I will withdraw from the discussion

 

Please don't leave.

 

I think you'll find more Christian Dominionists than you'll find Gay Activists. Of the two the Christian Dominionists scare me the most. The Gay Activists may want to have sex, the Christian Domnionists want to literally kill me.

Edited December 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

Oh, but the gay activists will not stop with that. I know a few that are after TWD (Total World Domination). Some say that conservative Christian groups are paranoid. You may want to evaluate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman. And I am approached fairly regularly to join one group or another. I comes as a great surprise to some that I am firmly committed to the GA of the church to prayerfully decide how to handle these issues.

 

It is my concern that they will keep pushing until the First Amendment to the Constitution is greatly weakened and they start forcing churches to do SSM and other things. Now you may think that I am blowing smoke but I have talked to "certain" Mormons that are concerned about that also. And I have talked to members of the gay community and younger, educated Americans who have told me that they do not believe in the Constitution. Such radicalism is fairly common in universities around the country.

 

And, have you forgotten that early Mormons were systematically deprived of the benefits of the First Amendment? The challenge against Polygamy should have been on the basis of proven abuses, not what ever they used as a reason to oppose it. I would really like to hear from an Attorney in regards to the legality of the denial of First Amendment rights to the Mormons.  The abuses of some of  the groups have been Media circuses, while I surmise that other groups exist without complaint, just a suspicion.

 

I know that Muslim and non-Mormon people do it at times and I have seen it. I am not defending the morality of the practice but the legal challenges have been trashy in my opinion.

 

As to a CFR on any of this, if one is put I will withdraw from the discussion

There were some Mormon activists who thought it was alright to murder an entire wagon train of immigrants who they thought had wronged them.  Since some Mormons felt this was ok, would be willing to make the statement that the "Mormon agenda" is to murder anyone who they feel has wronged them?  Just because someone is Mormon or gay, does NOT mean that they speak for all Mormons or in this case all gays.  

 

So yes, I would like to call for a CFR or have you withdraw your statement.  It is ludicrous that you can take any statement that anyone ever said and claim that this is the real reason why gays want marriage.

 

That however doesn't mean that I want you to leave the discussion.  It only means that I want you to re evaluate your beliefs.  If you base your beliefs on these kinds of ideas, you have a completely false basis for your beliefs.  So reconsider your thoughts and tell us if you have a different conclusion.

Edited December 11, 2013 by california boy

[EllenMaksoud]

Please don't leave.

 

I think you'll find more Christian Dominionists than you'll find Gay Activists. Of the two the Christian Dominionists scare me the most. The Gay Activists may want to have sex, the Christian Domnionists want to literally kill me.

Dominionists? This is a word I have not heard except used by my Son. He attends a church called "Old Dominion", and he uses very radical language, that is frightening to me.

 

I have sat in some GBLT activism meetings and believe their goals are larger than they say. Getting into our churches has nothing at all to do with the God that we know. Some simply want control and revenge. IMHO

 

Apology: I get emotional about this issue because I care strongly. The church took me in when no one else would and whether I am ever completely acceptable to them does not matter as much as being faithful and obedient to Heavenly Father. I have strong feelings about some GBLT activists for good reasons. I made my choice and I chose God. IMHO, they are not open and forthright about their agenda. My source is my personal experience by having set in ENDA meetings, and listened to Basic Rights Oregon activists, some of who are atheists. I am sorry that I get emotional at times and make rash statements. I will try to refrain.

Edited December 11, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[EllenMaksoud]

There were some Mormon activists who thought it was alright to murder an entire wagon train of immigrants who they thought had wronged them.  Since some Mormons felt this was ok, would be willing to make the statement that the "Mormon agenda" is to murder anyone who they feel has wronged them?  Just because someone is Mormon or gay, does NOT mean that they speak for all Mormons or in this case all gays.  

 

So yes, I would like to call for a CFR or have you withdraw your statement.  It is ludicrous that you can take any statement that anyone ever said and claim that this is the real reason why gays want marriage.

 

That however doesn't mean that I want you to leave the discussion.  It only means that I want you to re evaluate your beliefs.  If you base your beliefs on these kinds of ideas, you have a completely false basis for your beliefs.  So reconsider your thoughts and tell us if you have a different conclusion.

You and I will never agree. And no I will not reveal my LDS source.

[california boy]

You and I will never agree. And no I will not reveal my LDS source.

I am sorry to hear that.  I didn't expect you to judge the entire gay community based on what a few individuals said.  I guess I just expected more out of you.  Sorry.

[USU78]

The scourge on the land is the weekly suicides of our gay youth. Directly stemming from the hatred they feel is directed at their even breathing. And their blood is on the hands that produced the feeling they have for themselves. Check it out, once weekly in the state of Utah a gay youth has taken their life, and 2 to 3 a week in attempted suicides. It's an epidemic. This is coming from someone who's 13 yr. old son has just came out to her, and she took it upon herself to research the gay community. Not sleeping for non stop learning of the situation. These suicides are not really publicized, maybe they should, and an outcry to stop it. The power of God is love.

 

Nonsense.

 

Just continuing to assert this vicious lie does not make it any more true.

[USU78]

People can't be forced to buy things.

 

Obamacare?

[USU78]

I believe that early Mormons were denied their first amendment right to practice polygamy for much the same reason that we now have fought to deny marriage equality for gay couples. 19th century Americans didn't want the Mormons redefining marriage. We lost. And now the abused have become the abusers.

 

Homosexual sex/marriage are part and parcel of the free exercize of a religion?

[california boy]

For starters, religious freedoms are being denied not only in negating the right of businesses to refuse services to people as they chose, but also negating the right of businesses to refuse services to events as they chose. Cases of Catholic adoptions and a flower shop in Washington come to mind.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am sick and tired of these so called Christians trying to claim they are following the teachings of Christ by not baking cakes/taking photos of gay couples.  This is not Christianity, this is someone using Christ as a weapon to justify their homophobic beliefs.  This is the anti Christ.  This is why I have the quote by Gandhi in my tag line.  "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" 

 

Have these people not read the story of the good Samaritan?  Christ clearly taught that we are to serve others no matter who they are.  He condemned those that picked and choose who they would help based on who the person was.  Those that are following the teachings of one of the most important stories Christ told are the ones that stepped up to the plate and offered to bake the couple the cake.  Those that support such bakeries/photographers and want to follow the teachings of Christ should spend more time actually learning what Christ had to say about this very subject.

 

Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone that comes into their establishment but it is based on their behavior while in their establishment not on who they are.  The laws of America in regards to not discriminating based on their color, religion sexual orientation etc.  

[Rodeo]

Freedom of religion not Freedom from religion.

[altersteve]

You misunderstood me. Sexual immorality is sinful. So is drug addiction.

 

Being addicted to drugs is not a sin, just as being attracted to those of the same gender is not a sin. Acting on both those things is.

[rockpond]

Homosexual sex/marriage are part and parcel of the free exercize of a religion?

If our church was stripped of the ability to perform legally recognized marriages (in temples and chapels), while other churches retained that ability, would you consider it a violation of the first amendment?

[Rodeo]

Does a Jewish owned tattoo parlor have the right to deny giving a skinhead a tattoo of a Nazi sign?

[wenglund]

People can't be forced to buy things.  There is no double standard.  You are trying to compare apples and oranges. 

 

Of course there is a double standard. As I said, business is a two-way transaction. You and others are capriciously applying rules to one side of the transaction, and not the other.  Why can't you see this? In a free-market environment, neither people or businesses ought to be forced to buy or sell things. If either or both sides are forced by government into certain transactions, this entails a loss of freedom and amounts, in degrees, to tyranny and slavery.

 

Sadly, we as a country, particularly through judicial fiat, were lulled emotionally into accepting the disparate loss of commercial freedom, thinking we were doing right by the civil rights movement, though not realizing that there was a much better way (letting market forces prevail--which ultimately is what affected positive change anyway).

 

Consequently, the one-sided loss of commercial freedom has led to further loss of freedoms, to the point that religious liberty is being somewhat abridged., and good people like yourself couldn't give a care.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Fear is the driving force behind opposition to same sex marriage.  There is nothing to fear but fear itself.  There is no serious effort to dominate the world.  This type of fear seems to be equivalent of people fearing Mormons and fighting for the Church's destruction worried Mormons are going to take over the world.   Its all very unfounded.

 

You have it exactly backwards. It is common sense that is the driving force behind the opposition, and mindless emotions that are behind the lemming-like march towards codifying perversion.  The opposition is very founded to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am sick and tired of these so called Christians trying to claim they are following the teachings of Christ by not baking cakes/taking photos of gay couples.  This is not Christianity, this is someone using Christ as a weapon to justify their homophobic beliefs.  This is the anti Christ.  This is why I have the quote by Gandhi in my tag line.  "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" 

 

Have these people not read the story of the good Samaritan?  Christ clearly taught that we are to serve others no matter who they are.  He condemned those that picked and choose who they would help based on who the person was.  Those that are following the teachings of one of the most important stories Christ told are the ones that stepped up to the plate and offered to bake the couple the cake.  Those that support such bakeries/photographers and want to follow the teachings of Christ should spend more time actually learning what Christ had to say about this very subject.

 

Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone that comes into their establishment but it is based on their behavior while in their establishment not on who they are.  The laws of America in regards to not discriminating based on their color, religion sexual orientation etc.  

 

It is ironic to see self-righteous indignation used against people unwilling to bend to perversion. Somehow I don't think Christ appreciates being hypocritically used in this manner as a stick to beat good and decent Christians who simply wish to abide by their religious conscience.

 

But, you now have Caesar's laws to do your bidding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-