Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Tassman]

I'm pretty user a "considerable number of Christians" believe that homosexual activity is sin.

Well unless you’re plugging the “no true Christian” line there's quite a list of Christians that do not believe “homosexual activity is a sin”.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

I think I remember people earlier in this thread already agreeing that people should be consistent in this regard. That if you are going to refuse to take part in a ceremony honoring and affirming homosexual activity, then you would reasonably also refuse to take part in a ceremony honoring and affirming adultery.
So what?

Apparently providing pizza for the wedding reception of a divorced man’s second marriage does NOT constitute honouring and affirming the “sin” of adultery, whereas providing pizza for a homosexual wedding reception DOES constitute honouring and affirming the “sin” of homosexuality. Doesn't sound very reasonable to me!

[Spartacus]

Well unless you’re plugging the “no true Christian” line there's quite a list of Christians that do not believe “homosexual activity is a sin”.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/



Apparently providing pizza for the wedding reception of a divorced man’s second marriage does NOT constitute honouring and affirming the “sin” of adultery, whereas providing pizza for a homosexual wedding reception DOES constitute honouring and affirming the “sin” of homosexuality. Doesn't sound very reasonable to me!

Can you tell whether a couple is adulterous just by looking at them, without asking questions about their respective pasts? Is the same true of a homosexual couple?

[Sam]

Can you tell whether a couple is adulterous just by looking at them, without asking questions about their respective pasts? Is the same true of a homosexual couple?

Wouldn't the desire to avoid sinning overrule the desire to be polite by not inquiring?

At the very least, wouldn't the catering service in question be somewhat obligated to explain somewhere what its owners' religious views are and which services they do not want to cater?

[Epoetker]

You make it sound like there are only two options -- anger or despair. I take it that you're familiar with the concept of a false dichotomy or false dilemma.

Worse it appears that you essentially are encouraging DLA in what could be dire actions

Nuremburg was "dire", and also a deadly serious proclamation of what serious nations possessing nuclear weapons, carrier battle groups, and long range bombers will do to demonstrate to their enemies and their allies that they were serious about enforcing their recent victories. Can't really say I agree with all of the particulars or the justifications of the event, but I also can't say that it was the product of an immorally belligerent people acting out their paranoid revenge fantasies.

I have not seen much evidence against the notion that most gay activists are indeed enemies of the normal, disturbers of the peace, and especially good at leveraging their wealth and connections for overt and covert violations of the law, whether those laws are against controlled substances, sex with minors, generally depraved sexual practices, or the spreading of the deadly and incurable diseases that inevitably find those acts as a perfect vector. They act indistinguishably from spies and saboteurs of a hostile foreign power despite not having explicit orders from a foreign power to sow dissension, spread mistrust, flout the law, and weaken the body politic in whatever ways they can. What does the governing party traditionally do to spies?

More correctly, what did God himself authorize against those who used sex as a weapon against society? Back in the ancient bygone days of 2001, what did Glenn Miller imagine as an analogue for acts deserving of the death by genocide of your whole subculture?

this all done against a people who were no threat to them now, and were actually friends/allies of a related group.

A lack of murderous intent toward the present gay subculture, therefore, is the abnormal response, and a rather sure sign of moral exhaustion, jadedness, servility, failure, ignorance, wishful thinking, or compromise on the issue. It's completely understandable given your life circumstances, but I do not consider it a sign of true life, loyalty, or driving purpose in the holder. Your enemies will certainly not show you or any innocents under your control the same mercy.

[Mountain Man]

"To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny."
-Ronald Reagan

[Mountain Man]

...there's quite a list of Christians that do not believe “homosexual activity is a sin”.

Then there is quite a list of Christians who stand in direct opposition to God's word.

Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

[Tassman]

"To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny."
-Ronald Reagan

Interesting that you cite the opinion of Ronald Reagan, who lived for decades in an adulterous relationship with his second wife Nancy (according to scripture). Just sayin'.

Then there is quite a list of Christians who stand in direct opposition to God's word.

Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

As always it really depends upon interpretation of the texts doesn't it? There are very many strictures in Leviticus which are no longer considered relevant. And there is no specific reference by Jesus himself regarding homosexually. But there are specific, unambiguous reference by Jesus to divorce:

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" (Luke 16.18)

"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9).

... and yet most Christians today manage to explain these passages away. Hermeneutics is a wondrous thing.

[Bill the Cat]

Interesting that you cite the opinion of Ronald Reagan, who lived for decades in an adulterous relationship with his second wife Nancy (according to scripture). Just sayin'.

Jane Wyman abandoned him and did not desire reconciliation. The reasons for the divorce were never given, although rumor persists that she was having an affair with Lew Ayres. She also was the one who abandoned him, and at the time was not a practicing Catholic, so according to Paul, Reagan had every right to remarry.

And if you are going to go strictly by your narrow assumptions, his marriage to her was not even valid because she had been twice divorced before marrying Reagan.

As always it really depends upon interpretation of the texts doesn't it?

No. Not really. It comes from the Church's holistic treatment of the bible. It's an entire cohesive document, not to be played against itself when expedient.

There are very many strictures in Leviticus which are no longer considered relevant.

Because Leviticus was meant for the Jews. Much of it was to make the Jews a distinct people, Some was abrogated by the New Covenant, but much was left behind. Ritual purity was refocused inward to sanctification, causing the food prohibitions to be of no effect. Sexual purity remained.

And there is no specific reference by Jesus himself regarding homosexually.

Jesus gave the Torah, so yes there is. He also said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".

But there are specific, unambiguous reference by Jesus to divorce:

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" (Luke 16.18)

"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:7-9).

... and yet most Christians today manage to explain these passages away. Hermeneutics is a wondrous thing.

And fundyism is too.

[Yttrium]

I have not seen much evidence against the notion that most gay activists are indeed enemies of the normal, disturbers of the peace, and especially good at leveraging their wealth and connections for overt and covert violations of the law, whether those laws are against controlled substances, sex with minors, generally depraved sexual practices, or the spreading of the deadly and incurable diseases that inevitably find those acts as a perfect vector. They act indistinguishably from spies and saboteurs of a hostile foreign power despite not having explicit orders from a foreign power to sow dissension, spread mistrust, flout the law, and weaken the body politic in whatever ways they can. What does the governing party traditionally do to spies?

I dislike a lot of the tactics being used by liberals and certain gay rights activists, but I have to say, that's quite the delusional conspiracy theory you've got there.

A lack of murderous intent toward the present gay subculture, therefore, is the abnormal response, and a rather sure sign of moral exhaustion, jadedness, servility, failure, ignorance, wishful thinking, or compromise on the issue. It's completely understandable given your life circumstances, but I do not consider it a sign of true life, loyalty, or driving purpose in the holder. Your enemies will certainly not show you or any innocents under your control the same mercy.

So you're promoting a murderous intent towards the gay subculture. I sincerely hope that no one takes you seriously. I doubt too many Christians would throw out the Ten Commandments to join you, but you can count on most Americans (Christian and otherwise) to oppose you if you decide to act on your impulses.

[Mountain Man]

Interesting that you cite the opinion of Ronald Reagan, who lived for decades in an adulterous relationship with his second wife Nancy (according to scripture). Just sayin'.

Genetic fallacy. Just sayin'. (And this assumes your accusation against Reagan even has merit.)

As always it really depends upon interpretation of the texts doesn't it?

No, it really doesn't. There is no possible way to interpret scripture as saying anything other than homosexuality is a sin.

[lilpixieofterror]

Interesting that you cite the opinion of Ronald Reagan, who lived for decades in an adulterous relationship with his second wife Nancy (according to scripture). Just sayin'.

Got to smear some mud on anybody who dares to disagree with you eh? As Bill already pointed out (and I'm sure you'll ignore), there's some pretty legitimate claims (among those, she had no desire to stay married to him).

[Yttrium]

No, it really doesn't. There is no possible way to interpret scripture as saying anything other than homosexuality is a sin.

Well, you can throw out the rules in Leviticus, because most Christians these days don't take those old rules seriously. Then one would have to assume that Paul is just giving his opinion on homosexuality, rather than providing divinely inspired lessons on homosexuality. I would imagine that Romans 1:27 and 1:28 are hard for a lot of Christians to dismiss, though, and I wouldn't really expect them to.

[Mountain Man]

Well, you can throw out the rules in Leviticus, because most Christians these days don't take those old rules seriously. Then one would have to assume that Paul is just giving his opinion on homosexuality, rather than providing divinely inspired lessons on homosexuality. I would imagine that Romans 1:27 and 1:28 are hard for a lot of Christians to dismiss, though, and I wouldn't really expect them to.

Leviticus can not be arbitrarily ignored. What we "ignore" are the ceremonial and social laws like animal sacrifices and dietary restrictions. Those are part of the Old Covenant and no longer binding. Commands against things like bestiality and homosexuality, however, are moral laws and still relevant today. Furthermore, it's dangerous to dismiss parts of scripture as merely the writer's opinion because that excuse can be used to toss out whole chunks of the Bible

[Epoetker]

I dislike a lot of the tactics being used by liberals and certain gay rights activists, but I have to say, that's quite the delusional conspiracy theory you've got there.

More of a historical survey of the extremely well-established links between homosexuality and grossly socially destructive behavior. It's bad enough when it's between two deviants, but as it turns out, part of the fun of deviancy is corrupting other people, the earlier the better. According to the adult children of gay unions:

In private:

“While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning,” wrote Ms. Klein, adding that her mother and her partner of 25 years were both deceased and can “never hurt me again.”

Ms. Klein said she was expected to pay “constant homage and attention” to her mothers’ gayness and believe that gays were “much more creative and artistic” because they weren’t sexually repressed.

In public:

Making 13-year old boys kiss each other on national television.



In private:

Mr. Lopez said he and other children of gays feel “pain” — but it’s because there’s a “missing biological parent,” not because people lack legal marriage.

He said his childhood exposure to radical Catholic liberation theology and talk about “the beauty of homosexual relationships” led him into years of sexual experimentation, including taking money for sex with men.

A reunion with his long-estranged father led to his escape from the “toxic” gay family life, said Mr. Lopez, who is now married to his girlfriend and a father.

In public:

"In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders... I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity... or because he or she is homosexual and innately know it. ... And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones." - Larry Kramer, writer and founder of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), in Reports from the Holocaust (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991)

In short, there seems to be a consistency to this ugly anti-normality across the gay culture.

So you're promoting a murderous intent towards the gay subculture. I sincerely hope that no one takes you seriously. I doubt too many Christians would throw out the Ten Commandments to join you, but you can count on most Americans (Christian and otherwise) to oppose you if you decide to act on your impulses.

You think so? What if I mailed the included photo to a sizeable block of middle-class voters with "this is what the gay community sees as normal for YOUR children" printed underneath it? Funny that no one in power seems to be willing to pull those shenanigans.

[Psychic Missile]

Leviticus can not be arbitrarily ignored. What we "ignore" are the ceremonial and social laws like animal sacrifices and dietary restrictions. Those are part of the Old Covenant and no longer binding. Commands against things like bestiality and homosexuality, however, are moral laws and still relevant today. Furthermore, it's dangerous to dismiss parts of scripture as merely the writer's opinion because that excuse can be used to toss out whole chunks of the Bible

Can you show where in the Bible it says that the Leviticus ceremonial and social laws should no longer be followed, but the moral laws should? Should the penalties for not following those moral laws still be followed? If not, can you show where in the Bible it says that those penalties shouldn't be followed? Also, how is it determined which laws are social and which are moral? For example, is getting a tattoo a violation of a moral law, and thus should not be done, or a violation of a social law, and therefore permissible?

To be clear, I am not contesting your argument. I want to know more about it.