Is a cross-shaped WWI memorial on public property unconstitutional?

[homersapien 11,371]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

We've already discussed why.  It's obvious they don't object to serving gay people simply for being gay because they have happily done business with them for other occasions - birthday, parties, etc.  They are objecting to a particular event because they feel that being a material participant to that event goes against their religious beliefs.  In this case, yes it's a gay wedding.  In another case it's that the rap artist's lyrical content is objectionable.  The issue isn't that they won't serve gays, or blacks, or rappers, or musicians.  It's that what they are doing is objectionable from a religious standpoint.  

 

.......because they believe homosexuality is a sin and a direct affront to God's will instead of a natural expression of how God created them.  

That's the ultimate foundation or context of the conflict.  That foundational belief is the one that will be tested over time, so it needs to be expressly noted. 

[TitanTiger 20,481]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

.......because they believe homosexuality sex outside of one man/one woman who are married to each other is a sin and a direct affront to God's will instead of a natural expression of how God created them.  

The mere fact that one is attracted to their own sex is not a sin.

 

Quote

That's the ultimate foundation or context of the conflict.  That foundational belief is the one that will be tested over time, so it needs to be expressly noted. 

You can note it, but it doesn't make it appreciably different from their religious objection to pornography or vulgar and profane artistic expressions.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The legal system isn't meant to tell us whether someone's beliefs are valid, only whether they have the right to hold those views and to what extent (if any) we can compel them to act against them.

I don't think the legal system even dictates what beliefs a person has a right to hold. It does, however, dictate conduct expressing those beliefs. There's a popular SCOTUS case where the Court banned any use of peyote even though the particular group's religious beliefs required its use during ceremonies. 

[homersapien 11,371]

On 6/25/2019 at 2:16 PM, TitanTiger said:

The mere fact that one is attracted to their own sex is not a sin.

Sure - as long as they deny it and/or don't act on it.  That's a pretty big "if".

 

You can note it, but it doesn't make it appreciably different from their religious objection to pornography or vulgar and profane artistic expressions.

Profanity and vulgarity are not naturally occurring traits that occur in people.   You referencing them in the context of a discussion about homosexuality only confirms your basic view that homosexuality is a sin as opposed to a naturally occurring condition in humans.

This distinction is important because it's the one that has to be changed for people to accept the truth.  Everything else is just noise that avoids that basic conflict.

Religions won't get this right until they evolve - by the passage of time - to the point they are willing to accept the truth about why homosexuality exists.  It's just like many of the other things that are ultimately founded in their ancient manuscripts they have learned to discount or ignore.   I figure this will not happen by people changing their mind, it will happen as younger people come to accept what is apparent in the science.

But cutting to the chase and highlighting the crucial conflict can only help in that regard. 

Of course, allowing people to believe what they want to believe and not coercing them to accept homosexuality as normal is important also.  And as I have said, this is an area that begs for compromise, at least in the interim.   But it's not the main issue when it comes to resolving the basic conflict of "sin" vs. nature that underlies it all. 

Oh and I see what you did regarding "marriage".  Can't have homosexuals participating in the civic institution of marriage as if they are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

59 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Oh and I see what you did regarding "marriage".  Can't have homosexuals participating in the civic institution of marriage as if they are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

They can participate in it all they want.  What they can/should not be able to do is compel anyone else to join in the celebration with them.

 

Profanity and vulgarity are not naturally occurring traits that occur in people.   You referencing them in the context of a discussion about homosexuality only confirms your basic view that homosexuality is a sin as opposed to a naturally occurring condition in humans.

Nope.  Homosexuality is simply the state of being attracted to one's own sex (and not the opposite sex).  It, just like any other naturally occurring desire or preference, does not intrinsically constitute actually having sex with someone.  One can be a homosexual regardless of whether they ever actually have sex, just like one can be a heterosexual even if they spend their entire life single and celibate.

Secondly, artistic expression is a pretty natural human instinct.  And this rapper is free to express himself in that way if he chooses.  But he's not free to force others to help him promote it.

 

 

[homersapien 11,371]

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

They can participate in it all they want.  What they can/should not be able to do is compel anyone else to join in the celebration with them.

As a practical matter I agree, but let's don't simply ignore their philosophical counter-argument which is the analogy that black people shouldn't be able to compel a restaurant to serve them. 

 

Nope.  Homosexuality is simply the state of being attracted to one's own sex (and not the opposite sex).  It, just like any other naturally occurring desire or preference, does not intrinsically constitute actually having sex with someone.  One can be a homosexual regardless of whether they ever actually have sex, just like one can be a heterosexual even if they spend their entire life single and celibate.

So are you conceding that a sexual attraction to the opposite sex is something that can occur naturally?

As a hypothetical, what if the homosexual couple in question in these "service" cases have declared the intention to remain celibate?  Could you "support" that marriage?

Secondly, artistic expression is a pretty natural human instinct.  And this rapper is free to express himself in that way if he chooses.  But he's not free to force others to help him promote it.

Again, your focus continues to be on this perceived attack on your own rights - homosexuals "forcing" you to validate or agree with their sexuality.  I am not arguing against that.  As a practical matter you have the right to believe and act on whatever you believe.

All I am arguing is that you should admit the ultimate origin of your bias against homosexuality - it's a religious view that rejects the possibility it is natural.

A more accurate, truthful view of homosexuality - based on science and historical observation - is that homosexuality occurs naturally.  In other words - assuming the existence of a creator (God) - it is a condition that God created.

That is the critical dichotomy that requires decision.  It is the one that must be addressed to change peoples minds for the future - one way or the other.

Defending one's personal right to believe what they want to believe - or to "participate" or not - is certainly important, but it doesn't address the primary conflict between "sin" vs. "nature".  Such arguments are important in their own right but they are secondary.  At worst, they are a way of avoiding the foundational debate between "sin vs. nature".

So it's fine to argue you have a right to refuse service to a homosexual couple wanting to celebrate a marriage.  As a practical matter, I don't disagree with that right.  But at least acknowledge the fundamental reason that informs that right is that you believe homosexuality is a sin instead of a God-created, natural condition. 

(And arguing that homosexual feelings are natural while homosexual activity is sinful is a way of dancing around (avoiding) your fundamental position.  But on the plus side, I suppose that it may indicate you are at least half-way to the truth of the matter. )

 

 

Quote

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,481]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

As a practical matter I agree, but let's don't simply ignore their philosophical counter-argument which is the analogy that black people shouldn't be able to compel a restaurant to serve them. 

I would agree except I’m not advocating (and neither are the defendants in the court cases) that they should be able to just not serve gay people at all.  If gay people want to eat in their restaurants, come in and buy a birthday cake, have their retirement party catered, etc., they are happy to serve them.  They draw the line at a specific event that has content or purpose that violates their religious beliefs.  An equivalent for black people would be if they were being asked to provide services for, say, some African pagan religious observance.  Refusing to involve themselves in such an event, while still being willing to serve black customers under regular circumstances, would not mean they are racists who won't serve black folks.

 

Quote

So are you conceding that a sexual attraction to the opposite sex is something that can occur naturally?

I’ve never argued otherwise, mainly because it’s not relevant to my position.

 

Quote

As a hypothetical, what if the homosexual couple in question in these "service" cases have declared the intention to remain celibate?  Could you "support" that marriage?

It’s an interesting hypothetical.  Off the top of my head, I suppose one could support a ceremony of consecrated friendship where two people commit to living their lives together in celibate partnership.  The main objection for an orthodox Christian is that same-sex marriage violates what is a sacred sacrament to Christians and that it tells a lie about what that sacrament is and what it symbolizes.

 

Quote

Again, your focus continues to be on this perceived attack on your own rights - homosexuals "forcing" you to validate or agree with their sexuality.  I am not arguing against that.  As a practical matter you have the right to believe and act on whatever you believe.

I’m focusing on attacks on rights because that is what the court cases are about.  If this was just about us arguing over who is right like whether we think the Star Wars sequels are valid parts of the canon, I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

Quote

All I am arguing is that you should admit the ultimate origin of your bias against homosexuality - it's a religious view that rejects the possibility it is natural.

It is a religious view on sexuality and marriage, yes.  But it doesn’t necessarily reject the possibility of it being some sort of genetic or inherent tendency.  Christian theology asserts that we live in a fallen world and all of us are born sinful and come with various sinful inclinations, some of which vary from person to person.  Not only that, but we know that people are born with various disabilities - weak immune systems, deafness, mental disabilities, susceptibilities toward addictions (alcoholism for instance) and many others.  All of these things would be “natural” in that no one forced or chose them.  But it’s just not relevant to whether or not certain actions are considered sinful.

 

Quote

A more accurate, truthful view of homosexuality - based on science and historical observation.

This is a statement loaded with unfounded presuppositions.  And the rest of your post here depends upon arguing against a position I don’t hold.

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

56 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Again, your focus continues to be on this perceived attack on your own rights - homosexuals "forcing" you to validate or agree with their sexuality.  I am not arguing against that.  As a practical matter you have the right to believe and act on whatever you believe.

All I am arguing is that you should admit the ultimate origin of your bias against homosexuality - it's a religious view that rejects the possibility it is natural.

A more accurate, truthful view of homosexuality - based on science and historical observation - is that homosexuality occurs naturally.  In other words - assuming the existence of a creator (God) - it is a condition that God created.

 

At the risk of getting entangled in an interesting dialogue in which @TitanTiger is certainly capable of holding his own, I will add my 2 cents:

Does something being 'natural', mean that it's something that is okay for us to act on or engage in?  From the Christian perspective, the answer is no.  Every person has 'natural' inclinations that it would be wrong for him or her to act upon.  I may be naturally inclined to beat someone up (e.g., my wife or my kids) when I'm angry.  Should I do that?  I may have a 'natural' desire to force a woman (or man) to have sexual relations with me.  Is that okay?  I may be naturally inclined to laziness or gluttony.  Should I indulge myself in the behaviors associated with these inclinations?  

[homersapien 11,371]

On 6/27/2019 at 9:46 AM, triangletiger said:

At the risk of getting entangled in an interesting dialogue in which @TitanTiger is certainly capable of holding his own, I will add my 2 cents:

Does something being 'natural', mean that it's something that is okay for us to act on or engage in?  From the Christian perspective, the answer is no.  Every person has 'natural' inclinations that it would be wrong for him or her to act upon.  I may be naturally inclined to beat someone up (e.g., my wife or my kids) when I'm angry.  Should I do that?  I may have a 'natural' desire to force a woman (or man) to have sexual relations with me.  Is that okay?  I may be naturally inclined to laziness or gluttony.  Should I indulge myself in the behaviors associated with these inclinations?  

In the case of homosexuality, science and history tell us it is a "natural" variation of human sexuality. It's not a "choice" made by those who are naturally heterosexual, which by definition, would be required if it were a sin.  That's my primary point by emphasizing it's a natural state.

I agree there are bad things that also come naturally, such as impulses that result in harm to others.  But that's where our morals and human empathy should kick in to moderate or resist those bad impulses.  So just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's good for society.

But homosexuality per se' doesn't hurt other people, certainly not when two homosexuals get married (for example).

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In the case of homosexuality, science and history tell us it is a "natural" variation of human sexuality. It's not a "choice" made by those who are naturally heterosexual, which by definition, would be required if it were a sin.  That's my primary point by emphasizing it's a natural state.

I agree there are bad things that also come naturally, such as impulses that result in harm to others.  But that's where our morals and human empathy should kick it to moderate or resist those bad impulses.  So, bottom line, just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's acceptable or good.

But homosexuality per se' doesn't hurt other people, certainly not when two homosexuals get married (for example).

 

The impulse or tendency towards homosexuality may not be a sin, but is it possible that indulging in acts of homosexuality could be sinful?  An analogy is that feeling angry may not be sinful, but acting unjustly or harmfully as a result of that anger may be sinful.  In all candor, I believe the Biblical position is that the sin actually start somewhere between the impulse toward doing something sinful and the act of indulging in that .  At some point, the human will gets involved and a person decides to indulge that tendency (dwelling on the sinful act rather than putting it out of his/her mind).  

As far as morals and human empathy are concerned, where do they come from?  What makes anything right or wrong?  What makes it wrong to harm other people for one's own gain or to be utterly self-centered and narcissistic?  

It is debatable whether homosexual relationships are harmful to other people.  Does it harm the homosexual couples themselves or cause long-term harm to society?  I guess it depends on what one's concept is of an ideal society.  

 

[homersapien 11,371]

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

The impulse or tendency towards homosexuality may not be a sin, but is it possible that indulging in acts of homosexuality could be sinful? 

Only if one considers documents written by men thousands of years ago which declare it as sin as the direct word of God. 

Personally, if no one is hurt or victimized, I don't consider it a "sin".

 

An analogy is that feeling angry may not be sinful, but acting unjustly or harmfully as a result of that anger may be sinful.  In all candor, I believe the Biblical position is that the sin actually start somewhere between the impulse toward doing something sinful and the act of indulging in that .  At some point, the human will gets involved and a person decides to indulge that tendency (dwelling on the sinful act rather than putting it out of his/her mind).  

As far as morals and human empathy are concerned, where do they come from? 

They come from where everything else came from, the evolutionary process of societies.

What makes anything right or wrong?  Our society/cultural and personal values.  Of course one could argue the Bible (for example) is also a manifestation of evolved cultural and societal values.  In fact, that's a much more accurate way of considering it than the "word of God".

What makes it wrong to harm other people for one's own gain or to be utterly self-centered and narcissistic?  Our society/cultural and personal values.  For better or worse, this is the way our species has evolved culturally.

It is debatable whether homosexual relationships are harmful to other people.  Does it harm the homosexual couples themselves or cause long-term harm to society?  I guess it depends on what one's concept is of an ideal society.  

I disagree. I think it's pretty apparent by now that homosexuality is not inherently harmful to other people.  For two homosexuals to formalize a loving relationship with marriage hurts no one.  If one perceives the mere existence of homosexuality as a threat, that says more about you than it does homosexuality.

Homosexuality exists and likely has existed in all societies.  There are theories that explain how homosexuality survived as a evolutionary advantage, but the fact it has survived speaks for itself.  If it were inherently disadvantageous from an evolutionary standpoint, it would have likely ceased to exist.

I am not advocating for homosexuality - as a firm heterosexual, I don't have a dog in that fight.  I am simply saying live and let live.

 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,851]

On 2/27/2019 at 1:28 PM, ArgoEagle said:

IMO, unconstitutional is an oxymoron when it deals with anything relating to the Lord God Jehovah, such as a cross , since our original Constitution was founded on His commandments, morals, and principles.   Question for the mods: does this conversation need to be moved to smack talk since it suggests religious beliefs?

Read actual history.

[ArgoEagle 1,786]

21 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Read actual history.

I have.

[triangletiger 1,599]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 2:34 PM, homersapien said:

The impulse or tendency towards homosexuality may not be a sin, but is it possible that indulging in acts of homosexuality could be sinful? 

Only if one considers documents written by men thousands of years ago which declare it as sin as the direct word of God. 

Personally, if no one is hurt or victimized, I don't consider it a "sin".

That is true; it does depend on one's view of the Bible.  If one doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God (or at least that portion of it which discusses the sinfulness of homosexual acts), then one must have another basis for his or her position on homosexuality.  That basis may be as simple as 'what seems right to me'.  

An analogy is that feeling angry may not be sinful, but acting unjustly or harmfully as a result of that anger may be sinful.  In all candor, I believe the Biblical position is that the sin actually start somewhere between the impulse toward doing something sinful and the act of indulging in that .  At some point, the human will gets involved and a person decides to indulge that tendency (dwelling on the sinful act rather than putting it out of his/her mind).  

As far as morals and human empathy are concerned, where do they come from? 

They come from where everything else came from, the evolutionary process of societies.  

If that's the case, then there really isn't any 'objective' morality.  What's right or wrong is really just a matter or preference or decorum, kind of like what's in fashion.  To harm someone else is not really wrong (in an ultimate sense), it's really just something done in poor taste or bad form.    Ultimately, the choices we make have no consequences because we are just headed toward the oblivion of the heat death.  Is this what you believe?   

What makes anything right or wrong?  Our society/cultural and personal values.  Of course one could argue the Bible (for example) is also a manifestation of evolved cultural and societal values.  In fact, that's a much more accurate way of considering it than the "word of God".

Again, on this view, it's all just a matter of convention and not objectively right or wrong.

 

Quote

 

What makes it wrong to harm other people for one's own gain or to be utterly self-centered and narcissistic?  Our society/cultural and personal values.  For better or worse, this is the way our species has evolved culturally.

Curious choice of words: 'for better or worse'...;)

It is debatable whether homosexual relationships are harmful to other people.  Does it harm the homosexual couples themselves or cause long-term harm to society?  I guess it depends on what one's concept is of an ideal society.  

I disagree. I think it's pretty apparent by now that homosexuality is not inherently harmful to other people.  For two homosexuals to formalize a loving relationship with marriage hurts no one.  If one perceives the mere existence of homosexuality as a threat, that says more about you than it does homosexuality.

The existence of homosexuality in and of itself is not the threat.  It is those who are pushing an agenda the ultimate goal of which is to undermine the very structures that hold our society together (such as the family).  The ultimate goal is not equal rights, but anarchy.  Granted, there are many other factors besides the LGBTQ agenda that are serving to erode these structures.  

Homosexuality exists and likely has existed in all societies.  There are theories that explain how homosexuality survived as a evolutionary advantage, but the fact it has survived speaks for itself.  If it were inherently disadvantageous from an evolutionary standpoint, it would have likely ceased to exist.

This presupposes a certain worldview that assumes that everything that occurs is the result of naturalistic, evolutionary processes.  I don't subscribe to that world view.

I am not advocating for homosexuality - as a firm heterosexual, I don't have a dog in that fight.  I am simply saying live and let live.

Unfortunately, many of those who are pushing a homosexual rights agenda don't see it your way.  They are trying to force those who hold the Biblical belief that homosexual acts are sinful to recant these beliefs.  They are infringing on their first amendment rights.  Jack Phillips and Baronelle Stutzman weren't out in the streets or the media castigating homosexuals, but trouble certainly came their way.   

I know these aren't simple issues to solve and I'm certainly not advocating for a theocracy, but we have to try to find a balance between protecting the rights of everyone.

 

 

[homersapien 11,371]

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

If that's the case, then there really isn't any 'objective' morality.  What's right or wrong is really just a matter or preference or decorum, kind of like what's in fashion.  To harm someone else is not really wrong (in an ultimate sense), it's really just something done in poor taste or bad form.    Ultimately, the choices we make have no consequences because we are just headed toward the oblivion of the heat death.  Is this what you believe?   

 

No you misunderstand what I mean by a natural, evolutionary source of morality.

It has nothing to do with fashion or preference, it is about the value system that has evolved for tens of thousands of years right along with every other aspect of society.  Murder is not immoral because some (recent) religious documents proclaim it to be.  It preceded those documents.*

All societies - regardless of their religious heritage - have established moral standards because they were required for society to work or to come into being.  No moral standards = no society.  Had these standards not come into being, we would have no society or culture at all. 

Religion - and the designation of moral standards as determined by religion - would never have happened in the first place had moral standards not preceded them.  Certainly that's true for modern sources of moral standards such as the Bible.

Such standards of behavior perhaps sparked early religious beliefs in order to justify them. For example if a Greek child asked why it was immoral to murder or steal I can imagine that inventing a religious deity would be a useful and practical way of justifying what is otherwise unknowable (at least at that time) - because Zeus said so!     God is eternally useful for explaining what you don't understand, as is thinking of authoritarian edicts as "objective".

Regardless, such basic standards certainly preceded documents related to modern religions such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. which simply documented standards in a religious setting.

To suggest one must rely on some specific authoritarian source to define morals is to simply overlook the actual history of our individual and societal evolution as a species.  The latter is no more "subjective" than the former.

Of course, many people find a lot of comfort in believing in a given authoritarian source.  These same people typically find the mechanisms of evolution profoundly discomforting.   Personally,  I am OK with it.   After all, even if there is a Creator, it's evolution that reflects its Modus Operandi.

[homersapien 11,371]

 

4 hours ago, triangletiger said:

Unfortunately, many of those who are pushing a homosexual rights agenda don't see it your way.  They are trying to force those who hold the Biblical belief that homosexual acts are sinful to recant these beliefs.  They are infringing on their first amendment rights.  Jack Phillips and Baronelle Stutzman weren't out in the streets or the media castigating homosexuals, but trouble certainly came their way.   

 

While that might be true for a few individuals I think it's a gross exaggeration as a general statement.

I think homosexuals simply want to be acknowledged as people with a different sexuality than the majority.  While they probably do care you think of them as sinners, I don't think they are interested in actually forcing you to change your thinking (as if they could. ) 

Unfortunately, claiming persecution is a classical way of rallying your "tribe" on either side. And both sides in this case tend to exaggerate that persecution.

After all, people that oppose homosexuality as sin are already in the minority and are likely decreasing over time. Heck, some churches are starting to accept homosexuality.

As long you don't go out of your way to actually persecute them, no harm done.  At least that's the way homosexuals should see it and I think the great majority of them do.

 

[homersapien 11,371]

4 hours ago, triangletiger said:

The existence of homosexuality in and of itself is not the threat.  It is those who are pushing an agenda the ultimate goal of which is to undermine the very structures that hold our society together (such as the family).  The ultimate goal is not equal rights, but anarchy.  Granted, there are many other factors besides the LGBTQ agenda that are serving to erode these structures.  

 

To make a general statement like that is just flat out demagoguery. 

It's absurd to associate homosexuals with a motivation to "undermine the very structures that hold our society together" and to have an ultimate goal of "anarchy".

While there are undoubtedly anarchist homosexuals - just like there are Christian homosexuals - to imply such motives to homosexuals is shameful.  It's just doubling down on them as sinners. 

Hell, many homosexuals obviously value families and their families contribute just as much to our society as heterosexual families.

Are you sure you aren't a theocrat?   That sure sounds like one.

 

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No you misunderstand what I mean by a natural, evolutionary source of morality.

It has nothing to do with fashion or preference, it is about the value system that has evolved for tens of thousands of years right along with every other aspect of society.  Murder is not immoral because some (recent) religious documents proclaim it to be.  It preceded those documents.*

All societies - regardless of their religious heritage - have established moral standards because they were required for society to work or to come into being.  No moral standards = no society.  Had these standards not come into being, we would have no society or culture at all. 

Religion - and the designation of moral standards as determined by religion - would never have happened in the first place had moral standards not preceded them.  Certainly that's true for modern sources of moral standards such as the Bible.

Such standards of behavior perhaps sparked early religious beliefs in order to justify them. For example if a Greek child asked why it was immoral to murder or steal I can imagine that inventing a religious deity would be a useful and practical way of justifying what is otherwise unknowable (at least at that time) - because Zeus said so!     God is eternally useful for explaining what you don't understand, as is thinking of authoritarian edicts as "objective".

Regardless, such basic standards certainly preceded documents related to modern religions such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. which simply documented standards in a religious setting.

To suggest one must rely on some specific authoritarian source to define morals is to simply overlook the actual history of our individual and societal evolution as a species.  The latter is no more "subjective" than the former.

Of course, many people find a lot of comfort in believing in a given authoritarian source.  These same people typically find the mechanisms of evolution profoundly discomforting.   Personally,  I am OK with it.   After all, even if there is a Creator, it's evolution that reflects its Modus Operandi.

I agree that morality preceded organized religion.  My point is that, without God, there is no objective basis (i.e., external to humanity) for morality.  Without an objective basis in which to ground morality, is anything really wrong?  Your view that the prohibition against murder (or any other immoral act) emerges over time based on trial and error (or natural selection) is really just a pragmatic or utilitarian view of morality.  "We do things this way because it seems to work for now, but it's subject to change with time."  Can something truly be morally wrong if, eventually, things might evolve to the point where they are considered morally right?  Who knows?  Maybe cannibalism will once again become en vogue.   

Why do you act morally?  What motivates you to do so?  It seems to me, on a purely evolutionary view, there is no free will involved to make moral choices.  Everything that occurs does so deterministically.  My so-called choices are merely the results of stimuli affecting electro-chemistry in my brain.  Even the sense that I have free will is an illusion. ( I suppose this delusional  sense that I am making free choice is a product of evolution and provides some survival advantage.)   

[triangletiger 1,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

While that might be true for a few individuals I think it's a gross exaggeration as a general statement.

I think homosexuals simply want to be acknowledged as people with a different sexuality than the majority.  While they probably do care you think of them as sinners, I don't think they are interested in actually forcing you to change your thinking (as if they could. ) 

Unfortunately, claiming persecution is a classical way of rallying your "tribe" on either side. And both sides in this case tend to exaggerate that persecution.

After all, people that oppose homosexuality as sin are already in the minority and are likely decreasing over time. Heck, some churches are starting to accept homosexuality.

As long you don't go out of your way to actually persecute them, no harm done.  At least that's the way homosexuals should see it and I think the great majority of them do.

 

I agree it is a general statement and does not apply to most homosexuals.  Don't confuse homosexuals as a people group with the militant LGBTQ rights movement that is afoot.  

I do  think they are sinners, but I think we are all sinners, so they are no worse than the rest of us.  They are still bearers of the Imago Dei and worthy of love and respect.   I am saddened by the way people who struggle with homosexuality have been treated by some Christians and some churches - especially when hypocritically they overlook other sins that undermining the family, such as adultery and divorce.     

I have homosexual family members who are not militant and just trying to live their lives.  I still love them and would help them if they needed help.  I can do this while still holding the view that their lifestyle is wrong.  

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

To make a general statement like that is just flat out demagoguery. 

It's absurd to associate homosexuals with a motivation to "undermine the very structures that hold our society together" and to have an ultimate goal of "anarchy".

While there are undoubtedly anarchist homosexuals - just like there are Christian homosexuals - to imply such motives to homosexuals is shameful.  It's just doubling down on them as sinners. 

Hell, many homosexuals obviously value families and their families contribute just as much to our society as heterosexual families.

Are you sure you aren't a theocrat?   That sure sounds like one.

 

 

Perhaps my statements came across as over-generalized, but there is still truth in what I said.  There is a militant LGBTQ rights movement occurring that is trying to move our culture into a direction that I believe is harmful.  Do I think that all homosexuals support that movement?  No, I do not.  I believe homosexuals are just going about their daily lives and dealing with their day-to-day struggles the same as heterosexuals.  

I do not desire to control anyone; nor do I desire to be controlled.  If someone wants me to see things differently, they need persuade me of his/her point of view rather than trying to coerce me.  I will do the same.  

[homersapien 11,371]

14 hours ago, triangletiger said:

I agree that morality preceded organized religion.  My point is that, without God, there is no objective basis (i.e., external to humanity) for morality.  Without an objective basis in which to ground morality, is anything really wrong?  Your view that the prohibition against murder (or any other immoral act) emerges over time based on trial and error (or natural selection) is really just a pragmatic or utilitarian view of morality.  "We do things this way because it seems to work for now, but it's subject to change with time."  Can something truly be morally wrong if, eventually, things might evolve to the point where they are considered morally right?  Who knows?  Maybe cannibalism will once again become en vogue.   

Why do you act morally?  What motivates you to do so?  It seems to me, on a purely evolutionary view, there is no free will involved to make moral choices.  Everything that occurs does so deterministically.  My so-called choices are merely the results of stimuli affecting electro-chemistry in my brain.  Even the sense that I have free will is an illusion. ( I suppose this delusional  sense that I am making free choice is a product of evolution and provides some survival advantage.)   

Because 1) that's the way I was brought up and 2) I have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. 

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Because 1) that's the way I was brought up and 2) I have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. 

But your position is that this innate sense of what is right and wrong are the product of evolution, correct?  If that's the case, this innate sense only exists because it provides some survival advantage (if not for you, then at least for humanity as a species).  Don't you see the inconsistency in this position and your innate sense that there are things that are truly (i.e., objectively) right or wrong?  On the evolutionary model, we are, in essence, machines acting in accordance with our programming.  We have no will and, therefore, no moral culpability.  If I hurt someone, I'm not really to blame because I'm just acting according to my programming (which may be glitchy ;)).  If my car breaks down and won't do what it was designed to do, I don't say that my car is being immoral or evil.  The problem with the naturalist evolutionary model is that it provides no basis for free will or intrinsic human dignity.