Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

What about them? I have no problems with some limits on property owner's rights when activities have adverse influence on neighbors.

I mentioned property rights because laws that "protect" individual groups often restrict the rights of others. I have mixed thoughts on it. While I don't think an employer should "descriminate" (just because it isn't a nice thing to do), I also feel that a bisiness owner should be able to hire/fire who they want for whatever reason they want. If one is to be responsible for the profitability, they should be able to make the decisions.

I guess it falls into one of those areas that I think the government should stay out of. Anti-descrimination laws should apply to the government. The government should equally represent all citizens. However, private citizens should be able to invite who they want into their home OR business.

I suspect most gay couples would be thrilled to be able to enter a legal union called something other than marriage if it brought them all the legal benefits currently bestowed on married couples.

Given the various legislation that has been proposed, I think there's more to it.

 

[ChilledMammal]

You mean to tell me that in order to accept someone or to care about them that you have to agree with everything they do or think?

No not at all, I was just suggesting that the philosophy of "hate the sin but love the sinner" doesn't hold water, as the people you are talking about don't feel loved at all.

That's absolute nonsense. Do you really agree with the politics, religion, lifestyle ect of every single one of your friends? Have you ever raised a child? Did you agree with everything they ever did?

I believe that not allowing a couple of loving homosexual adults to marry (our societies definition of a full and complete union between two adults) because of a book written in Hebrew and Aramaic by Iraqis (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people) and Jews before 'Christ' was born, and about 4.5 billion years after the earth was formed, is not reasonable.

The fact is that the sexual habits of anybody I know won't ever be an issue unless they make it an issue. Do you think that I would agree with the sexual habits of every heterosexual that I know? I'll bet I wouldn't. Am I somehow obligated to? I don't think so and I don't know why a homosexual would be entitled to anything different.

Fair enough, that is really good, but if you could just expand that sentiment a little bit further to cover marriage, we'd all agree.

Sorry, but what you're asking for here isn't "acceptance" or equal treatment. What you're asking for is special treatment.

Equal treatment is exactly what is called for, a loving relationship between two consenting adults should be respected equally regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[MikeFerrara]

No not at all, I was just suggesting that the philosophy of "hate the sin but love the sinner" doesn't hold water, as the people you are talking about don't feel loved at all.

Maybe we put too much emphasis on "feelings".

I believe that not allowing a couple of loving homosexual adults to marry (our societies definition of a full and complete union between two adults) because of a book written in Hebrew and Aramaic by Iraqis (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people) and Jews before 'Christ' was born, and about 4.5 billion years after the earth was formed, is not reasonable.

That's not why we disallow it. Thus far it has been disallowed in this country because everytime it's put to a vote, the PEOPLE vote overwealmingly against it. In the states where it is allowed, it's primarily because of liberal judges ruling on the constitutionality and throwing laws out against the will of the people.

BTW, my "feelings" are hurt by your comments regarding the Bible. LOL

Edit: I think it's also interesting to note how often court ruling are split down party lines.

Fair enough, that is really good, but if you could just expand that sentiment a little bit further to cover marriage, we'd all agree.

It's not required that we all agree.

Equal treatment is exactly what is called for, a loving relationship between two consenting adults should be respected equally regardless of sexual orientation.

Says who? You think it "should be respected" and I think it's a sin. I guess we'll have to settle it in the voting booth.

 

[redacted]

I mentioned property rights because laws that "protect" individual groups often restrict the rights of others. I have mixed thoughts on it. While I don't think an employer should "descriminate" (just because it isn't a nice thing to do), I also feel that a bisiness owner should be able to hire/fire who they want for whatever reason they want. If one is to be responsible for the profitability, they should be able to make the decisions.

I basically agree and believe a private business can do just that in the USA. However, when they practice illegal discrimination, they will be subject to litigation and penalties which the private business can treat as just part of the cost of doing business. So, if an anti-christian group were to buy out GM and fire all christian workers, I believe they could do that. But I suspect the legal actions and judgments would prove to be quite unprofitable.

 

[Warthaug]

Maybe we put too much emphasis on "feelings".

That's not why we disallow it. Thus far it has been disallowed in this country because everytime it's put to a vote, the PEOPLE vote overwealmingly against it.

The "will of the people" also denied women the right to vote, blacks their freedom, and lead to the near extinction of the Native Americans.

In each and every one of those cases it was the actions of a few, including some of those judges you so readily dismiss, who had the moral courage to go against the tyranny of the majority and give those people their rights.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bryan

 

[DiverBeth]

One of the principals which this country was founded upon was to protect the rights of the minority. So everything cannot be settled at the ballot box. If everything was settled by a vote this country would look very different in terms of who could do what.

While I know that some interpret the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, are there any prohibitions against working with or hiring homosexuals? Or are there other prohibitions against interacting with homosexuals? I really am curious. The reason I ask is that most people engage in some behavior that others would consider sinful in one way or another yet they willingly interact with these sinners.

 

[Thalassamania]

When you get right down to it I do find "property rights" a bit strange, I mean ... how can you own a piece of the planet in perpetuity? After some period of time (granted a long time) it's not going to be here.

 

[redacted]

When you get right down to it I do find "property rights" a bit strange, I mean ... how can you own a piece of the planet in perpetuity? After some period of time (granted a long time) it's not going to be here.

I guess a good deal is when you go before the property. Ocean view in CA may be a little risky.

 

[MikeFerrara]

The "will of the people" also denied women the right to vote, blacks their freedom, and lead to the near extinction of the Native Americans.

In each and every one of those cases it was the actions of a few, including some of those judges you so readily dismiss, who had the moral courage to go against the tyranny of the majority and give those people their rights.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bryan

I do not dismiss those judges or the constitution that they are supposed to basing their ruling on. It does sound like you dismiss the will of the people though? Maybe you would rather have a dictator?

 

[Thalassamania]

Our government was put in place by our Founding Fathers, in no small part, to protect each and every one of us from the will of the mob.