Do you respect the conscience of a slavemaster who claims that the Bible approves slavery? Does a person’s conscience give him the right to deny equal protection of the law to another person? Some see this not as a matter of conscience, but as a matter of equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
Being forced to bake someone a cake at one’s own business is not the same as forcing another into slavery based on one’s belief.
Considering that the CC has admitted that it does not understand or know the causes of homosexuality a reasonable definition would be that the CC believes it is a sin same as any other sexual act that they believe is a sin.
No dichotomy at all, it tells you where my my priorities are but if you want to concern yourself with other peoples sexual acts that’s your business, still I hope that you are kind to our shared ecology and environment for the sake of future generations.
Considering that conservative Christians had been persecuting and violating the consciences of thousands of LGBT people for decades and centuries, it’s hard to feel sorry about a handful of bakers and florists being forced to bake cakes or arrange flowers for which they will be paid. Before 1962, homosexual sex was a felony in every US state and 4 states still had such laws on the books as late as 2003 when they were finally struck down by the US Supreme Court. In Britain, homosexual acts were not decriminalized until 1967.
If I’m in any business connected to weddings, it is my business when two men want me to help them publicly celebrate what they choose to do with their genitals.
There are bad actors on both sides of the divide. I don’t judge all people on one side by the bad actions of the minority of extremists and hope others won’t judge me by the extremists on my side. Unfortunately there are extremists who use the law for their own selfish needs.
What religious doctrine or personal opinion did I just mention? I mentioned only natural law, which is neither. And why do you reject the Thomist view on natural law?
That’s not what is meant by “natural” in the term natural law. Existing in nature isn’t the basis of natural law. What is meant by “natural” is the nature of a thing, or its purpose or natural end.
I’m not so sure. And if it does, it will take a very long time to get there.
Believe it or not (and I’m sure you won’t be surprised), homosexual “marriage” is not the top of my list of things to worry about. I’m far more worried about the millions of innocent children slaughtered everyday. That, I think, is a far more pressing, far more insidious, and far more destructive issue than anything else.
Then why waste your time responding to estesbob and others?
Why bring up polygamy as an unacceptable human behavior? Many human cultures around the world still practice polygamy and many Old Testament patriarchs and kings were polygamists including Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah (the father of Samuel), King David and King Solomon.
Re-read what I asked, I asked if you had any sources other than the above.
He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind, nor immense sums of silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:17 DRC1752)
That mindset is part of the problem. We do not view marriage or a wedding reception as a ‘celebration of what we choose to do with our genitals.’
But at the root, that’s all it can ever be for a same-sex couple: Approbation for their sex life. For a male/female couple - absent any physical defects - it is the creation of a new family and a new generation of humanity. There is a tangible result of their sex life which is celebrated. What’s the tangible result of homosexual activity?
That isn’t true at all.
Why concern yourself with the sex lives of gay men and women? That would be a legitimate topic of conversation around Lawrence, in which the State made the sex lives of gay men a public matter, but not in this case. It doesn’t even matter at the end of the day because the State does not tie biological children, or any children for that matter, to marriage today.
The topic concerns arguments on SS marriage, not on whether someone is forced to bake a cake.
Then kindly show me the tangible result of homosexual activity that furthers the species.
Because by demanding “marriage”, they are making their sex life a public matter - that’s what the root of marriage is. And the state does in fact tie biological children to a marriage: Any child born to a married woman is assumed to be fathered by her husband, absent evidence to the contrary.
It isn’t even a relevant question because the ability, intent, or willingness to have children is not a requirement of marriage. Furtherance of the species? Give it a rest. There are 7 billion people in world.
The State only makes that claim on this issue and never when it comes to heterosexuals. Not one State requires children to be produced within a marriage at all nor does it tie biological children to marriage as was demonstrated in oral arguments when Tennessee law was cited.
The reference in Deuteronomy is to kings such as Solomon who had 700 wives, many of whom were foreigners and led him astray. This is not a blanket prohibition of polygamy.
