Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Again, to clarify:  It sounds as if you're saying you agree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, but you disagree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination where an element of behavior or choice is involved.

Is that correct....?

If it is correct, which of those two categories ("race" vs. "behavior/choices") do you feel that laws prohibiting anti-discrimination regarding interracial marriage would fall...?  Meaning, do you feel that the choice to marry someone of a different race a matter of "race" or "behavior/choice"?

Since a person has no control over his or her natural skin tone, natural hair and eye color --- I see no Biblical reason blacks and whites cannot marry unless they are of an entirely different religious persuasion. God made male and female. God designed the human body and man has corrupted the body functions. Homosexuality is the ultimate display of body behavior abuse by choice. It is ugly and obscene and undermines male companion and friendship through gross sexual violation of the human anatomy and errant acts of sexual aggression and domination. 

I feel it is entirely wrong to either encourage homosexuality by trying to reduce heterosexuality or elevate homosexuality as somehow equal. And this is what the Liberal government has been attempting to do ----"normalize" homosexual behavior through the intimidation of private businesses, schools, various clubs, the armed forces and social organizations... They have ultimately said, believe what you wish, just keep it to yourself unless you are for homosexuality. 

And this was brought about by the AIDs epidemic. It seemed somehow better that gays get married then have multiple fetish sex partners. This is the secular hedonistic rationalization ultimately. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Kenngo1969]

41 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think the higher authority in this case is kirtland McConkie.  I don't see God's hand in this at all.  If you recall this mess started out as a policy that was being slipped into the hand book.  When it was outed and the brethren received serious public and member push back, they modified the policy.  Push back continued, so all of a sudden it is now a revelation.  Though the one who supposedly received the revelation has remained quiet.  This is not exactly a time line that inspires confidence IMO.  It is more like an attempt at damage control.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "Kirtland McConkie."  If you're referring to the law firm which represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in various matters, that's Kirton McConkie.  With respect to the controversy over recent additions to the Church Handbook of Instructions, issuance of The Family: A Proclamation to the World predates that controversy by about 20 years. You're absolutely free to not see God's hand in the issuance of the Proclamation, and/or in the recent Handbook changes.  We'll simply have to agree to disagree.  I wish you well.  

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "Kirtland McConkie."  If you're referring to the law firm which represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in various matters, that's Kirton McConkie.  With respect to the controversy over recent additions to the Church Handbook of Instructions, issuance of The Family: A Proclamation to the World predates that controversy by about 20 years. You're absolutely free to not see God's hand in the issuance of the Proclamation, and/or in the recent Handbook changes.  We'll simply have to agree to disagree.  I wish you well.  

The family proclamation says nothing about forbidding children entry into the church because of the supposed sins of their parents.  But Jesus was not silent on the topic:

Quote

 

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

                                                                                                                                                              (Matt 19:14) 

 

But, you're absolutely free to not see God's hand in this issue.

Edited December 21, 2016 by sunstoned

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Do you know how many proclamations have appeared over the signatures of each member of the First Presidency and/or of the Quorum of the Twelve in the entire history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I am not really willing to go down this rabbit hole again.  The Proclamation on the Family has never been declared a revelation no matter how many church leaders have put their signature on it. 

[Daniel2]

On 12/20/2016 at 6:00 PM, kllindley said:

Who determines if the relationship is abusive or harmful? What are the criteria and who gets to set them? 

I would have thought that's self evident... but here's my response:

It depends on the situation and the type of abuse in question.

What one couple consider to be acceptable communication could be considered emotional abuse by others. 

The decision to stay within a potentially-abusive marriage is ultimately a personal one which is up to the personal autonomy of the two people capable of legal consent who are married to one another.

Whether or not to support the marriage of a loved one by family members and/or friends which they consider to be abusive is up to the personal autonomy of family members and/or friends.

There are certain legal standards and definitions which encompass abuse (like age of consent, physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or measureable/demonstrable immediate and irreparable harm) that can affect the legal ramifications of either marriage or custody orders, resulting in forced separation (through incarceration of the physical abuser) or loss of custodial privileges (if children are being harmed).  In these cases, government has set the criteria and will decide, through the judicial process.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Since a person has no control over his or her natural skin tone, natural hair and eye color --- I see no Biblical reason blacks and whites cannot marry unless they are of an entirely different religious persuasion. God made male and female. God designed the human body and man has corrupted the body functions. Homosexuality is the ultimate display of body behavior abuse by choice. It is ugly and obscene and undermines male companion and friendship through gross sexual violation of the human anatomy and errant acts of sexual aggression and domination. 

I feel it is entirely wrong to either encourage homosexuality by trying to reduce heterosexuality or elevate homosexuality as somehow equal. And this is what the Liberal government has been attempting to do ----"normalize" homosexual behavior through the intimidation of private businesses, schools, various clubs, the armed forces and social organizations... They have ultimately said, believe what you wish, just keep it to yourself unless you are for homosexuality. 

And this was brought about by the AIDs epidemic. It seemed somehow better that gays get married then have multiple fetish sex partners. This is the secular hedonistic rationalization ultimately. 

Nipper, I find it increasingly frustrating that I've repeatedly tried to summarize your views and asked simple, direct questions to see if I've summarized your views correctly, yet you avoid responding directly to those questions.  In the interest of clear communication, I find it best to ensure I understand what you're saying before I respond in full, so as to avoid making incorrect assumptions.  Rather than answer my questions for clarification, you launch into entirely new paragraphs without ever clarifying if I've previously understood you, causing even more confusion on my part.  In good faith, I'd really appreciate it if you'd answer the questions either 'yes,' 'no,' or 'your summary of what I believe is partially right or partially wrong, let me clarify...'  But avoiding the clarifying questions doesn't seem to be helping me understand you--it's causing more confusion and frustration.

That being said, and before I respond to the above, could you please answer the following with either a "yes," "no," or "your summary of what I believe is partially right or partially wrong, let me clarify..."

1. Do you agree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on race?
2. Do you disagree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination where an element of behavior or choice is involved?
3. If you answered yes to both of the above, which of those two categories ("race" vs. "behavior/choices") do you feel that laws prohibiting anti-discrimination regarding interracial marriage would fall...?  Meaning, do you feel that the choice to marry someone of a different race a matter of "race" or "behavior/choice"?
4. Do you feel it's acceptable for businesses to discriminate against potential customers based on business owner's religious beliefs?
5. Do you feel it's acceptable for employers to discriminate against their employees based on religious beliefs?

Please note, when answering the above: I'm NOT asking about your personal religious/a-religious beliefs (or whether or not you feel there are "Biblical reasons" to prohibit/allow) as to whether or not interracial marriage or same-sex marriage or any other type of marriage are moral or not--I'm asking about your views on whether or not you support anti-discrimination LAWS in our secular government.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Nipper, I find it increasingly frustrating that I've repeatedly tried to summarize your views and asked simple, direct questions to see if I've summarized your views correctly, yet you avoid responding directly to those questions.  In the interest of clear communication, I find it best to ensure I understand what you're saying before I respond in full, so as to avoid making incorrect assumptions.  Rather than answer my questions for clarification, you launch into entirely new paragraphs without ever clarifying if I've previously understood you, causing even more confusion on my part.  In good faith, I'd really appreciate it if you'd answer the questions either 'yes,' 'no,' or 'your summary of what I believe is partially right or partially wrong, let me clarify...'  But avoiding the clarifying questions doesn't seem to be helping me understand you--it's causing more confusion and frustration.

That being said, and before I respond to the above, could you please answer the following with either a "yes," "no," or "your summary of what I believe is partially right or partially wrong, let me clarify..."

1. Do you agree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on race?
2. Do you disagree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination where an element of behavior or choice is involved?
3. If you answered yes to both of the above, which of those two categories ("race" vs. "behavior/choices") do you feel that laws prohibiting anti-discrimination regarding interracial marriage would fall...?  Meaning, do you feel that the choice to marry someone of a different race a matter of "race" or "behavior/choice"?
4. Do you feel it's acceptable for businesses to discriminate against potential customers based on business owner's religious beliefs?
5. Do you feel it's acceptable for employers to discriminate against their employees based on religious beliefs?

Please note, when answering the above: I'm NOT asking about your personal religious/a-religious beliefs (or whether or not you feel there are "Biblical reasons" to prohibit/allow) as to whether or not interracial marriage or same-sex marriage or any other type of marriage are moral or not--I'm asking about your views on whether or not you support anti-discrimination LAWS in our secular government.

1.Yes

2. Yes

3. Number 1

4. Yes

5. Yes

Edited December 21, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

1.Yes

2. Yes

3. Number 1

4. Yes

5. Yes

SEE ttps://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042#.aa6s0x5rj

[LittleNipper]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE ttps://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042#.aa6s0x5rj

Sorry, but you already know that I believe race is not a sin. Acting out one's Homosexuality is a sin (SODOMY). The very same applies to ADULTERY, FORNICATION, ABORTION on demand, LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, HATING, GLUTTONY, GOSSIPING, BEARING FALSE WITNESS, CURSING ---- and the list goes on... God designed the body. God makes the rules. We live in a fallen state because of Adam. The only way an individual can be saved, is that he first admits that he is a sinner. Homosexuals are trying to prove that GOD made them the way they are. That is a lie. GOD allowed them to be born the way they are so that they might also have a chance at salvation that GOD freely gives to everyone who will believe in Jesus the Messiah. 

The ones who choose to live their lives they way they wish are not humble. Repentance is a part of salvation. Many homosexuals are presently under the false notion that if society accepts them, then they are okay. They are not okay. Okay is not good enough for GOD. Sorry if this hurts you, it was meant to inform you. If I lie and say, "Oh do as you like. God is nothing but love. You'll be fine." God would be unhappy with me.and people would go to a Christ-less eternity on MY account.  I don't want that for anyone.

 

PS> People wanted slaves and so they made excuses to have and keep them. People wanted to use other people. We fought a Civil War as a result. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

1.Yes

2. Yes

3. Number 1

4. Yes

5. Yes

Thank you.  I appreciate your succinct answers.

Do you consider gender to be in the same category as race, when it comes to eligibility for legal anti-discrimination protections?  Meaning, do you believe gender to be a matter of behavior/choice, or do you believe gender is NOT a matter of behavior/choice (like 'race' is)?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Sorry, but you already know that I believe race is not a sin. Acting out one's Homosexuality is a sin (SODOMY). The very same applies to ADULTERY, FORNICATION, ABORTION on demand, LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, HATING, GLUTTONY, GOSSIPING, BEARING FALSE WITNESS, CURSING ---- and the list goes on... God designed the body. God makes the rules. We live in a fallen state because of Adam. The only way an individual can be saved, is that he first admits that he is a sinner. Homosexuals are trying to prove that GOD made them the way they are. That is a lie. GOD allowed them to be born the way they are so that they might also have a chance at salvation that GOD freely gives to everyone who will believe in Jesus the Messiah. 

The ones who choose to live their lives they way they wish are not humble. Repentance is a part of salvation. Many homosexuals are presently under the false notion that if society accepts them, then they are okay. They are not okay. Okay is not good enough for GOD. Sorry if this hurts you, it was meant to inform you. If I lie and say, "Oh do as you like. God is nothing but love. You'll be fine." God would be unhappy with me.and people would go to a Christ-less eternity on MY account.  I don't want that for anyone.

 

PS> People wanted slaves and so they made excuses to have and keep them. People wanted to use other people. We fought a Civil War as a result. 

It has been a long time since a post has just simply...blew me away.  Wow.

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Thank you.  I appreciate your succinct answers.

Do you consider gender to be in the same category as race, when it comes to eligibility for legal anti-discrimination protections?  Meaning, do you believe gender to be a matter of behavior/choice, or do you believe gender is NOT a matter of behavior/choice (like 'race' is)?

I believe that gender is not the same as race. Thought I tend to play down race --- I mean we are all related through Adam. I do believe that men and women should be paid the same for doing the very same work; however, I can also understand that a married woman may decide to have a baby and that can be very disruptive.to business, There should be some allowances. Whereas the male rarely takes off for "family" matters.and child raising.

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It has been a long time since a post has just simply...blew me away.  Wow.

If nothing else it was entirely honest and every attempt was made to be sympathetic. What good is it if a man (or woman) should get everything in life they ever wanted but lose their own soul. The truth is not always what people want to hear but it has the capacity to change eternity.

Edited December 22, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Yirgacheffe]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It has been a long time since a post has just simply...blew me away.  Wow.

It's also why "nones" are the fastest growing religious group.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Sorry, but you already know that I believe race is not a sin. Acting out one's Homosexuality is a sin (SODOMY). The very same applies to ADULTERY, FORNICATION, ABORTION on demand, LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, HATING, GLUTTONY, GOSSIPING, BEARING FALSE WITNESS, CURSING ---- and the list goes on... God designed the body. God makes the rules. We live in a fallen state because of Adam. The only way an individual can be saved, is that he first admits that he is a sinner. Homosexuals are trying to prove that GOD made them the way they are. That is a lie. GOD allowed them to be born the way they are so that they might also have a chance at salvation that GOD freely gives to everyone who will believe in Jesus the Messiah. 

The ones who choose to live their lives they way they wish are not humble. Repentance is a part of salvation. Many homosexuals are presently under the false notion that if society accepts them, then they are okay. They are not okay. Okay is not good enough for GOD. Sorry if this hurts you, it was meant to inform you. If I lie and say, "Oh do as you like. God is nothing but love. You'll be fine." God would be unhappy with me.and people would go to a Christ-less eternity on MY account.  I don't want that for anyone.

 

PS> People wanted slaves and so they made excuses to have and keep them. People wanted to use other people. We fought a Civil War as a result. 

Sodomy in the Bible wasn't about homosexuality. That was a later insertion.

SEE https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/sodomy-a-biblical-word-study-that-might-surprise-you/

Abortion is recommended in the Bible.

SEE http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

The available evidence is that sexual orientation is developed between pre-birth and 5 years old with most occurring around 2 years old. So in any real measure it is not a choice.

SEE  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Apparently your God mandates killings for reasons that would place him in prison if he were mortal. My God can take care of himself, and he sure doesn't need me or you to tell him what to do. Believe me I have no problem with telling people what I believe when asked. IE; I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would you like to know more about us?

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I believe that gender is not the same as race. Thought I tend to play down race --- I mean we are all related through Adam. I do believe that men and women should be paid the same for doing the very same work; however, I can also understand that a married woman may decide to have a baby and that can be very disruptive.to business, There should be some allowances. Whereas the male rarely takes off for "family" matters.and child raising.

So, using your logic that certain classes of people (in the above case, the "gender" of the employee) "can be very disruptive to business," so "there should be some allowances," I presume you'd suggest that businesses should be able to discriminate against:

• physically disabled employees (especially where their disabilities impact business operations and are disruptive)
• non-native English-speakers with difficult-to-understand foreign accents (due to their potential disruption to business)
• elderly people with potential health problems and who are more likely to be technologically-challenged (who's age also disrupts business)

Of course, since you also believe that it's fine to discriminate against employee's religion, it goes without saying that if certain religions require prayers at certain times, then employers should be free to fire those employees, regardless, but even more so because of the potential disruption to business. 

Would you agree that I have applied your logic consistently to each class of people in the above examples?

Finally, in some social/cultural regions of the United States as well as some institutions' line of business and/or corporate culture, racism still is an issue and hiring employees with a specific racial background may be preferable by said companies.  In such cases, even the act of hiring some individuals of any given race would be "disruptive to business."  In such cases, if an individuals' race "becomes disruptive" to business, should employers be able to fire employees due to any disruptions based on employees' race...?

Daniel

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sodomy in the Bible wasn't about homosexuality. That was a later insertion.

SEE https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/sodomy-a-biblical-word-study-that-might-surprise-you/

Abortion is recommended in the Bible.

SEE http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

The available evidence is that sexual orientation is developed between pre-birth and 5 years old with most occurring around 2 years old. So in any real measure it is not a choice.

SEE  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Apparently your God mandates killings for reasons that would place him in prison if he were mortal. My God can take care of himself, and he sure doesn't need me or you to tell him what to do. Believe me I have no problem with telling people what I believe when asked. IE; I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would you like to know more about us?

How about I tell you that I believe that every baby born (except for one) was born a sinner. You don't have to teach a child to do wrong. It come naturally. Everyone is born with a weakness. And as for tampering with the Bible, there are religions who have been trying to undermine the inerrancy of scripture for years with various excuses. I don't buy it. The men of the city wanted to have sex with the visitors. That was all that was on their little minds, even when blinded --- and they didn't want Lot's daughters, in fact they'd sooner take Lot himself. ****/oral sex is violent. It is abusive, dangerous, and goes against the GOD created applications for those organs. And it is addictive. Look up oral cancer --- mouth and throat. Look up rectal cancer. Look up HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis --- there is an endless load of sexually transmitted diseases ---and they are not a reward from God for a job well done.  

My GOD can take care of Himself; however, He want me to be honest and tell the truth.

[LittleNipper]

29 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

So, using your logic that certain classes of people (in the above case, the "gender" of the employee) "can be very disruptive to business," so "there should be some allowances," I presume you'd suggest that businesses should be able to discriminate against:

• physically disabled employees (especially where their disabilities impact business operations and are disruptive)
• non-native English-speakers with difficult-to-understand foreign accents (due to their potential disruption to business)
• elderly people with potential health problems and who are more likely to be technologically-challenged (who's age also disrupts business)

Of course, since you also believe that it's fine to discriminate against employee's religion, it goes without saying that if certain religions require prayers at certain times, then employers should be free to fire those employees, regardless, but even more so because of the potential disruption to business. 

Would you agree that I have applied your logic consistently to each class of people in the above examples?

Finally, in some social/cultural regions of the United States as well as some institutions' line of business and/or corporate culture, racism still is an issue and hiring employees with a specific racial background may be preferable by said companies.  In such cases, even the act of hiring some individuals of any given race would be "disruptive to business."  In such cases, if an individuals' race "becomes disruptive" to business, should employers be able to fire employees due to any disruptions based on employees' race...?

Daniel

I don't see either the disabled or women players in the NFL. And I don't see them hiring people who have been in jail for child molestation at day cares and schools. And I do not see atheists being recruited for the ministry or church secretary. Can a foreigner be President? Do you have a problem with that? 

Edited December 22, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

11 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

How about I tell you that I believe that every baby born (except for one) was born a sinner. You don't have to teach a child to do wrong. It come naturally. Everyone is born with a weakness. And as for tampering with the Bible, there are religions who have been trying to undermine the inerrancy of scripture for years with various excuses. I don't buy it. The men of the city wanted to have sex with the visitors. That was all that was on their little minds, even when blinded --- and they didn't want Lot's daughters, in fact they'd sooner take Lot himself. ****/oral sex is violent. It is abusive, dangerous, and goes against the GOD created applications for those organs. And it is addictive. Look up oral cancer --- mouth and throat. Look up rectal cancer. Look up HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis --- there is an endless load of sexually transmitted diseases ---and they are not a reward from God for a job well done.  

My GOD can take care of Himself; however, He want me to be honest and tell the truth.

Non-vaginal sex isn't exclusive to same-sex couples.  It is not uncommon among heterosexual couples, and most major religions that I'm aware of are silent about and/or don't condemn non-vaginal sex between monogamously-married heterosexual couples (I don't doubt that there are some religions that forbid such practices, but based on what I've seen and read, that attitude has continued to diminish, even within Mormonism, and most religions accept that sex can serve non-procreative functions between married spouses, as well).

As I've repeated numerous times and every time these types of allegations are made as evidence for the immorality of same-sex sexual relations, the diseases you mention are tied to spreading around certain viruses (HIV, HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc.) from promiscuous sex with multiple partners of all genders (whether straight/bi/gay), rather than a monogamous sexual relationship with a single partner of either sex.

Of course, I don't imagine any of the above will affect your views that homosexual sex is sinful, because your beliefs that it is sinful are rooted in what you believe the Bible says on the subject.  I expect that your misapplication of the data about disease is more a reflection of your belief that homosexual relations are sinful, rather than the source of that belief.

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I don't see either the disabled or women players in the NFL. And I don't see them hiring people who have been in jail for child molestation at day cares and schools. And I do not see atheists being recruited for the ministry or church secretary. Can a foreigner be President? Do you have a problem with that? 

I see you've reverted back to avoiding answering the questions, rather than addressing them.

Disappointing, but telling about the weakness of your arguments.

By the way, none of the examples you give are synonymous or analogous with the questions I posed, since none of your examples are violations of existing anti-discrimination law, so they are irrelevant to the questions at hand.  You, on the other hand, are arguing for doing away with existing anti-discrimination law, which the examples in the questions I posed are examples of.  Your response is a misguided attempt to compare apples to oranges.

I hope you'll stay on topic by answering the questions I posed.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

If nothing else it was entirely honest and every attempt was made to be sympathetic. What good is it if a man (or woman) should get everything in life they ever wanted but lose their own soul. The truth is not always what people want to hear but it has the capacity to change eternity.

Well...I have to admit that your honesty is your truth. 

[LittleNipper]

11 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Non-vaginal sex isn't exclusive to same-sex couples.  It is not uncommon among heterosexual couples, and most major religions that I'm aware of are silent about and/or don't condemn non-vaginal sex between monogamously-married heterosexual couples (I don't doubt that there are some religions that forbid such practices, but based on what I've seen and read, that attitude has continued to diminish, even within Mormonism, and most religions accept that sex can serve non-procreative functions between married spouses, as well).

As I've repeated numerous times and every time these types of allegations are made as evidence for the immorality of same-sex sexual relations, the diseases you mention are tied to spreading around certain viruses (HIV, HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc.) from promiscuous sex with multiple partners of all genders (whether straight/bi/gay), rather than a monogamous sexual relationship with a single partner of either sex.

Of course, I don't imagine any of the above will affect your views that homosexual sex is sinful, because your beliefs that it is sinful are rooted in what you believe the Bible says on the subject.  I expect that your misapplication of the data about disease is more a reflection of your belief that homosexual relations are sinful, rather than the source of that belief.

 

I never said it was. I said it was inappropriate. Many if not most people today seem to feel that sex is their prerogative. And that is a wrong notion also. Marriage is a gift from God and not man's invention. Of course I do not expect you to accept this. I'm sorry you have a problem with the Bible. It is one book worth studying.

Edited December 22, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

I never said it was. I said it was inappropriate. Many if not most people today seem to feel that sex is their prerogative. And that is a wrong notion also. Marriage is a gift from God and not man's invention. Of course I do not expect you to accept this. I'm sorry you have a problem with the Bible. It is one book worth studying.

Again, I respect that your statements about God, sex, and morality are your sincerely held religious beliefs.  I don't anticipate that I will change your mind to the contrary, just as I don't imagine your assertions will have much affect on my beliefs, though I am ALWAYS interested in hearing and learning from others, even (and often especially) when I don't share their beliefs.

From a legal perspective (which is the scope of this thread, regarding the intersection of religion and law), sexual behavior is within the realm of the personal autonomy--or to use a more religious word, within the agency--of each individual.  Meaning, from a legal perspective, each of us is free to make our own decisions about whether or not, how, and/or when to express ourselves sexually. so long as we don't infringe on others' right to the same.

The question at hand is what degree individuals' private religious beliefs should be justification for discrimination in the public square.  I believe that freedom of religion means the government strives to ensure that we each are free to practice our Faith as we see fit in our private lives, and that in the public square, the government strives to ensure to the best of it's ability that each of us is as free as legally and logistically possible from having others' religious beliefs on us.  It's a careful balancing act, especially when there are clashes between two individuals' civil rights.  But the government is doing the best job it can, and often stumbles through some mistakes as it continues to try to find the most just way of ensuring that civil rights (including freedoms of religious expression and speech) are upheld.

I have studied The Bible extensively.  One of my core principles is:

Quote

I believe in the toleration of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the art of listening.

Regarding The Bible, I find some of it very uplifting, some of it quite horrifying, and most of it to be the philosophies of men mingled with so-called scripture.  Like all books of scripture, there are good examples and bad examples, things that have worked, and things that were misguided.  Some of it is a reflection of the divine that dwells in each of us.  Ultimately, like the sacred texts of all religions, one thing I agree with you on is that The Bible is worthy of study, especially to understand one facet and spiritual quest of humanity's past, present, motivation, and potential as individuals, families, communities, and a global community.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

How about I tell you that I believe that every baby born (except for one) was born a sinner. You don't have to teach a child to do wrong. It come naturally. Everyone is born with a weakness. And as for tampering with the Bible, there are religions who have been trying to undermine the inerrancy of scripture for years with various excuses. I don't buy it. The men of the city wanted to have sex with the visitors. That was all that was on their little minds, even when blinded --- and they didn't want Lot's daughters, in fact they'd sooner take Lot himself. ****/oral sex is violent. It is abusive, dangerous, and goes against the GOD created applications for those organs. And it is addictive. Look up oral cancer --- mouth and throat. Look up rectal cancer. Look up HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis --- there is an endless load of sexually transmitted diseases ---and they are not a reward from God for a job well done.  

My GOD can take care of Himself; however, He want me to be honest and tell the truth.

Aah, I understand so now it is your religion that gets to decide what the laws do to a citizen of the US. You must love Iran. 

Inerrancy of scripture is  a very modern thing.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

The science of the Bible is full of errors.

SEE http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors 

Oral sex is not violent when done right. HIV is not a homosexual disease.

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 7:59 PM, LittleNipper said:

Since a person has no control over his or her natural skin tone, natural hair and eye color --- I see no Biblical reason blacks and whites cannot marry unless they are of an entirely different religious persuasion.

One other clarification on the above:  I understand you personally make marital choices based on your understanding of and beliefs in The Bible.  And of course, that's entirely your right to do so, when making your own choices.

But, given the fact that the U.S. Government doesn't make laws advocating one religion over others, and since you feel that "a person has no control over his or her natural skin tone, natural hair and eye color," do you believe that wedding-related businesses and employers shouldn't be allowed to legally discriminate (i.e. withhold goods or services) against interracial couples who marry one another?