Religious right vs. gays in Arizona?
All individual human rights for the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed under the BILL OF RIGHTS.....ALL people in this country....NO RELIGION has a right to infringe on those rights because of WHAT THEY FEEL TO BE THE TRUTH OF THEIR BIBLE written 1500 years ago.....feelings are not facts by a long shot....and therefore the religious have no say in this matter.
Should the minority make a law opposed to the will of the majority? IF so, then that would mean that child molesters could also pass laws allowing child molestation.
Why do some Christians from the U.S. travel to other countries and incite violence against people?
Why do some Christians officially categorizes the Pope as the Antichrist?
Why do some Christians help spread disease (because of the unrealistic stance on contraception)?
Why do some Christians let sick child die rather than seek medical care?
Why do some Christians treat women still as inferiors in their organization?
Why do some Christians still sacrifice people?
Why do some Christians believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri?
Why do some Christians believe that Americans are being killed at war because America is tolerant of homosexuals?
Why do some Christians believe the OT is superseded by the NT and some not?
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson
Why is it that many Christians ignore science?
Why do some of them tell two different stories at the same time (even selling them) about science?
Why do they travel to other places and incite violence against other people?
Why do they promote the jailing of people or remain complacent about their fellow Christians who do the same?
Why does the Anglican Communion demote the one person who tried to quell the violence against people in Uganda?
Why are they not listening to people from the National Institutes of Health?
Why do they ignore biologists?
=== for instance =====================================
The following is from the article:
Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find (12/11/2012 – LiveScience)
[ The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.
Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.
These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the [Dec, 2012] journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.
"These things have evolved because they're good for the parents, but they sometimes, not [with] high frequency, but sometimes carry over" into offspring, study researcher William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told LiveScience. In a male fetus, Rice and his colleagues write, an epigenetic change that benefited the mother may lead to "feminization" of sexual preference — homo- or bisexuality. The same may be true for epigenetic changes passed down by dad to a female fetus. (The terms feminization and masculinization of sexual preference refer to sexual orientation only — not to physical or personality traits of the offspring.)
The findings add to past research suggesting gay men haven't died out, because female relatives of gay men tend to have more children on average than other females. The study researchers specifically found that two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
Hormones, epigenetics and orientation
Rice and his colleagues focused on epi-marks, which are molecular changes that act like temporary "switches" to turn genes on and off. If a gene is a blueprint, the epi-mark is the construction foreman who makes sure the product gets built. An epi-mark also determines when, where and how much a gene is expressed, according to the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis.
These molecular switches are usually erased very early in the developmental process, but they can be passed down from generation to generation, too, Rice said.
Some epi-marks are particularly important during fetal development, when they promote normal physical development in the sexes despite natural variations in testosterone during pregnancy. Researchers know that fetal exposure to too much testosterone can masculinize the genitals, brain or behavior of a genetically female fetus. Likewise, too little testosterone can make a genetically male fetus more feminized.
But here's the catch: There's lots of overlap between the levels of testosterone male and female fetuses get exposed to. That means there must be another side to the story, Rice and his colleagues wrote.
That side appears to be epigenetics, Rice said.
"Early in development, we think these epi-marks are laid down so that girl fetuses will be relatively insensitive to testosterone and male fetuses will be relatively sensitive to testosterone," Rice said.
Thus, if an epi-mark that kept a mother from getting exposed to high testosterone in development gets passed on to her son — the opposite sex — it could desensitize him to testosterone, contributing to his sexual preference for men. Similarly, if a male-specific epi-mark from dad gets passed to a daughter, it could "masculinize" her sexual preference, making her more interested in women.
These findings could explain why twin studies show that homosexuality runs in families, but no "gay gene" can be found, Rice said. In identical twins, there's about a 20 percent chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be too. If genetic change were responsible for homosexuality, you'd expect a much higher match, Rice said. Epigenetics, however, can explain the heritability without the need for a specific genetic change.
The hypothesis could be tested by examining epigenetic marks in parents of kids with gay versus straight offspring, Rice said. There are, of course, concerns that this knowledge could be used by parents who want to avoid gay offspring, Rice said, but that concern already exists around certain hormonal conditions in utero, which are known to contribute to an increased chance of offspring being lesbians.
"That cat's already out of the bag," Rice said. He added that an understanding of the biological underpinnings of homosexuality could help emphasize that same-sex behavior is not "unnatural."
"In fact, it's a major part of the natural world," Rice said. Fourteen percent of Western gulls raise chicks in female-female pairs, he pointed out. And 8 percent of male sheep show zero interest in fertile ewes, but get sexually excited by other rams. ]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age. Research into how sexual orientation in males may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises concerns about genetic profiling and prenatal testing."
Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."
The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."
Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science.
(quote at end by Thomas Jefferson)
I don't understand why the hate for people that make up only 10% of the population? Even if every gay person got married, it still won't come near the total of straights getting married. I'm here in NYC. Gay marriage is legal. Nobody talks about gay marriage in NYC. It's not even an issue. The constant crying by conservatives keeps it in the public eye.
Because to the religious right, freedom of religion means that they have the freedom to impose their religious doctrine on the entire nation. And all the lies about the founding of our country and the position of our founding fathers is justified.
They must have taken Martin Luther very seriously when he said it was good to lie for Jesus.
No it is nothing to do with freedom.
It is about fear. Fear of change. Fear of something different. Fear that they have to explain to their children that some families have two mommies, because that contradicts the indoctrination they plan for their children to raise them according to their definition of an unchanging status quo.
Claims of "freedom" are the rationalization of their fears.
I don't think we can really say that for sure in a majority of the cases. I think that a bid for the power to push their own doctrine is a much farther reaching explanation. The fear is definitely a factor, but perhaps in a minority of cases.
It's debatable, but the result is the same.
"a bid for the power to push their own doctrine"
That is certainly true.
I wonder, would these same Americans hold that if the majority of citizens voted for someone to be dictator for life, that should automatically supersede the system established by the Const.itution?
I don't really understand what you're asking or about who.
@hawaii.............I'm sure that's an Obama reference some how.
Is he one of those?
His post doesn't make any sense. So yes, he is one of them.
As far as I can see here the hate is the other way around: against religious people.
Please put your glasses on. Is there anyone advocating that you be legally deprived of equal rights?
Yes. But even more important is the pure hate, without a direct motivation.
Do you consider:
(a) trying to force beliefs on others
(b) implying that people deserve to spend eternity burning in hell
(c) depriving others of equal rights
to NOT be a source of "direct motivation"?.
Where is any of this in a post like this:
"I've decided religion should be under attack. Let's sharpen our pitch forks and light some torches and get this started! We need a slightly higher burden of proof than when the christians burned the 'witches' in Salem, but we obviously need to burn some evil doers at te stake! We need to get out some hot pokers, some racks, hold a few people under water to see if they die! It should be a crime to believe"
And this is only one that I have quickly available where hate is the only message. Many others are full of bad language, lies or misinformation which does not come from any motivation (real or supposed) but from hate. And still this group is the one that talks about being hated.
There are definitely bad manners and mindless comments from both sides, but your example stinks. It seems obvious that the references are to methods historically used by the RELIGIOUS to persecute others. Read about the activities in Salem in our own countryland some time.
If ga ys are 10% and so much hated, how do you explain we don't see much more hate posts against them?
It's mind-numbing how people can support discrimination against others and want to deny them equal rights and yet have no idea why the victims might be upset with them.
To prove your statement on gays hatred, please list one comment on here from a gay expressing hatred.
I just gave an example. In addition just the mention of words like "hypocrite" and "bigot" in many instances where Christians are named, including your own posts. Also I didn't say one shdn't be upset but it doesn't justify hate. And the claim was here the other way around and you didn't answer my question.
Bigotry is HATRED.
As far as HYPOCRISY goes, there may not be any greater example of it than when Christians tell others they are going to hell for not believing all of a book that the Christians don't believe all of.
The pick-and-choose mentality of Christians when it comes to SELECTING which sins they actively oppose is another great example of HYPOCRISY.
I hope you realize that you just confirmed the hate. Justified or not it is hate. And saying the other part hates you while doing the same is hypocrisy.
lol. I pointed out valid examples of HYPOCRISY and ALL you can come up with is the idiotic claim that I hate those people.
Try again. You completely failed.
I understand you love the Christian but hate their sin we get it.
Actually I wasn't talking about you but whetever. Here is an advice: there is too much hate and aggressivity coming from the gay community and it doesn't serve their cause. You may say that it's me that see it this way but I don't think so. Someone more neutral would notice as well. This Arizona law (which I didn't support) failed for now but there are other states and other laws coming. The small gay community depends of the majority voting in their favor. However when well-intentioned and otherwise gay-friendly people see this much hatred they may change their mind.
What "hate" are you referring to? I haven't seen any hate at all coming from the Gay Community. Anger maybe. Please let me know what you are considering to be "hate", and that this is from gays. Are there gay majorities somewhere trying to pass laws to deny rights for straight people?
Oh, tranny. What you call hate is not just coming from gays. It's coming from Americans from all walks of life who are sick and tired of people using their god (for which there isn't an ounce of evidence) as an excuse to deprive our fellow citizens of their rights. What you call hate is people demanding fairness and justice for a minority that has been discriminated against for far too long. It's very sad that you can't recognize the difference. Poor thing.
Superb response tallulah.
Where is your example of gay hatred?
There's plenty examples of hatred toward gays by the supporters of this bill to deny fellow Americans equal rights.
Please inform me of tthe next time when an Athiest plants a bomb, kidnaps, murder or steal someone of religion strictly because of their beliefs? Because the next time you inform me it will be the first time. Around 70% of Americans view themselves as Chritians yet some how their the consistent victims.
Perhaps the hate you sense is really frustration that the religious right won't mind their own business and stay out of other people's business.
What was the sin of Sodom?
Which was worse; Sodom or Jerusalem?
If you aren't familiar with this word either, please ask your male friends or use a DICTIONARY
I'm using a Greek Lexicon which actually researches the original Biblical languages...
H.om.os.e.xual, ar.senokoites, means a sodomite: an abuser of (that defiles) self with mankind. This is someone who has a relationship with the same s.e.x.
The city of Sodom was synonamous with ho.mo.se.xuality, therefore the name refers to men and women who have s.e.x with the same s.e.x.
That was meant to be a response to oberservernow.
In case you've missed it, we are talking about ENGLISH, not GREEK. English words had DERIVATIONS in many languages, but the origins are IRRELEVENT because of the current usages and definitions.
Please spend less time reading a 2,000-year-old book and improve your education by using a DICTIONARY.
Actually, no. When you are talking about Biblical topics, you must use the terms meant by the authors. The modern renditions and misinterpretations are irrelevant.
Please let us know the publication date of your new dictionary. You just make yourself look like a fool by claiming that all English dictionaries are wrong. They give the CURRENT MEANING of words, which seems to be a surprise to you.
Which is MORE IMPORTANT: verses that pick on gays or the Golden Rule? You can't follow both simultaneously. Which one did Jesus say was more important?
Golden gate bridge.
It doesn't matter what jesus "said" That like wondering what a cartoon character said.
I knew I forgot one!
Gays and lesbians got here the same way. The parents had s3x, the daddy came, 9 months later, baby. If the mother wanted to have an abortion, the religious whack jobs would be quoting the bible left and right. If the baby turns out gay/lesbian the baby is the devil and should be treated like garbage. Puhleeze.
Actually, no s3x was necessary. In vitro fertilization, or even just a trusty old turkey baster filled with donor semen can get a woman pregnant, right?
No matter the method she's still pregnant. They baby still could be gay or straight.
If you think people have a right to do things based on their religious beliefs, then you also believe the hijackers had the right to crash planes into the twin towers. That was done because of their religious beliefs. They believed it was "the will of allah."
The idea is not about action, but rather inaction. At the heart is the question of whether or not someone should be forced to act against their conscience.
It goes both ways. Should a christian doctor NOT help a pregnant single mother. That's inaction.
If they choose out of conscience to not give of their goods and services, they should not be in a business that supplies goods and services. Choose another profession. If they refuse service or goods, they should expect the very same treatment right back...YOUR jesus should have taught you to treat others as you would be treated. Treat all equally, or get out of the business.
Stop talking about the teachings of Jesus as if you have any idea of what He taught.
A Christian is supposed to love, yes, but he also has a responsibility to rebuke unrighteousness and to denounce what is wrong. Neither can he take part in anything that would endorse sin.
If that particular Christian's conscience will not permit him to take an action that he feels would be endorsing sin, then he has an obligation not to act in that way – whether it is in a business or not.
So if they want to practice bigotry, it's ok
If a doctor doesn't do what he took an oath to do, It's ok.
Crashing planes into buildings, it's ok.
Why have laws that apply to everyone? Whatever YOU believe you do. The h3ll with everyone else.
People wonder why the middle east is a disaster.
Does a Christian have any responsibility to follow the Golden Rule when it comes to dealing with gays rather than pick and choose less important commands?
Does a Christian have any responsibility to NOT pick and choose whatever sins he wants to make an issue out of and which ones he wants to IGNORE since he and his family or friends engages in them while picking on others?
"Stop talking about the teachings of Jesus as if you have any idea of what He taught. "
I know exactly what he taught, and a large prtion of it came from the Buddha.
If a gay person who works at the power company is refused service, then that gay person should be allowed to stop the flow of electricity to that person.
By your logic, that is the way it should be, since that person who's "conscience" does not allow himself to "support" a gay person, he IS supporting the gay person by buying electricity from a company that employs the gay person. He IS supporting that gay person just the same. Your argument is ridiculous and baseless, since their conscience only goes halfway down the street.
"Does a Christian have any responsibility to follow the Golden Rule when it comes to dealing with gays rather than pick and choose less important commands?"
The golden rule does not negate the necessity to preach against sin. In fact, identifying sin in your neighbor's life isone of the most loving things that you can do for him. And I do not know of any Christian that picks and chooses what sins to preach against while ignoring others. The reason we're talking about THIS topic is because it is the subject of the blog.
"Does a Christian have any responsibility to NOT pick and choose whatever sins he wants to make an issue out of and which ones he wants to IGNORE since he and his family or friends engages in them while picking on others?"
As I said, no Christians do not have a right to pick and choose which sins to preach against, but this sin is the subject of the blog, so we're talking about it. If this blog were about divorce, we would preach on divorce. And if a Christian engages in a sin that he is also preaching against, then he himself has much to repent of, and may even disqualify himself as an elder until he does so.
You argument doesn't make any sense because power generation is morally neutral.
Unfortunately christians pick and choose which sins to preach about all the time no matter the subject. One is birth control. According to surveys, over 90% of catholic women use birth control. Yet all you hear is how christians think birth control is a sin. The hypocrisy is galling.
"Unfortunately christians pick and choose which sins to preach about all the time no matter the subject. One is birth control. According to surveys, over 90% of catholic women use birth control. Yet all you hear is how christians think birth control is a sin. The hypocrisy is galling."
First off, Catholicism isn't Christian. I could start with Martin Luther, go through John Calvin, and end up with Jonathan Edwards and John Owen, and finally John MacArthur to make that point, but I won't go there.
Second, Christians are not against birth control per se, just birth control that contains even the slightest risk of killing a fetus.
Christianity: (noun) the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Please use a dictionary in the future.
Please use a dictionary in the future.
I don't care how sinful men define Christianity. Look to the teachings of the papists, specifically how they view the doctrines of justification, and compare that to what the Bible says. I'll wait.
Slightest risk my azz. You don't care about them before they're born, and you don't care about them after they're born. The manufacturer, doctors and other medical experts have stated the morning after pill DOESN'T cause abortions. If the woman is pregnant THE PILL WILL NOT WORK. You remind me of the climate change deniers. Facts don't matter. What rush tells you is true.
PRETENDING that words don't mean what all the dictionaries say is just ANOTHER sure sign of the pitiful weakness of the arguments by many Christians. Sad.
Bitter are we?
PRETENDING that words don't mean what all the dictionaries say is just ANOTHER sure sign of the pitiful weakness of the arguments by many Christians. Sad.
The Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563 – convened to affirm and codify the teaching of the Catholic Church in response to the Reformation – said “To those who work well unto the end, and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered." And "It is given as a reward, promised by God Himself to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.” Salvation in the Catholic Church is something that one earns “By those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life."
This is in total contradiction to the word of God. No works done by the believer can redeem him before God; no priest has the power to forgive sins, and no indulgence bought can hold back the due punishment for sin. God’s Word says that “by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight;” we are justified to God as a gift by grace through faith in Jesus. Indeed, we are justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:1-25, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:6, 11) And Ephesians 2:8-10 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
In this case, the dictionary denies the facts.
You just make Christians look more PATHETIC when the only argument you can come up with is to claim that possibly EVERY ENGLISH DICTIONARY is wrong because YOU know better. Delusion.
I'll type slowly so you can keep up.
You claim that you can refuse service to a gay person because you do not want to support them. Then any service or goods that you buy from a place that employs a gay person is ALSO supporting the gay person, so by your argument, you should not only refuse to provide services from gays, but you should also REFUSE goods and service from the same group.
How could one of such conscience, accept services from those his conscience will not let him support?
If you are a member of a white supremacist church ( and there are many), and you run a grocery store, you want to refuse service to any who are not white, by the same token, you should not accept services from the same groups you deny.
SO they should not buy any services or goods from non-whites...including EVERYTHING...education...can't go to school, they employ gays, blacks whites hispanics....home school it is. Can't purchase any electronics...most are made overseas bynon-whites...can't use those products.
Do you see now theo, why it is blatently wrong to deny on a bigotted religious view, but then turn around and accept services from that very same group. Do you see why the "won't support" argument is false, since anything you buy or use that any gay person had a hand in, supports that person.
You are one of the worst examples of christian i have ever heard, and since I do know his teaching so well, I can say, you are making him ashamed for you.
Webster has never made any claims to theology. For that you need a Bible, and an understanding of the teachings of the papists. Then compare the two. It's not hard unless you are unwilling to do the reading.
Not bitter at all. I'm sad because you're probably telling your children the same nonsense you write on these blogs. That's why the circle of ignorance never stops.
You claim that you can refuse service to a gay person because you do not want to support them.
No, what I claim is that a Christian is not likely to partake in a service that in and of itself may be deemed as participating in a sin. For instance, a Christian wedding planner asked to plan a "wedding" of two sodomites. Because sodomy is a sin, then participating in planning the wedding gives approval and legitimacy to it. On the other hand, supplying power is morally neutral, since it is not participating in a sinful deed.
A DICTIONARY gives the definitions and usages of words. If you want to make up your own dictionary, please go right ahead.
Until then, please use ANY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARY. "It's not hard unless you are unwilling to do the reading."
Then if you would, please reconcile the differences between the papists teaching on justification, and what the Bible has to say, and why the difference...
"Because sodomy is a sin, then participating in planning the wedding gives approval and legitimacy to it. On the other hand, supplying power is morally neutral, since it is not participating in a sinful deed."
It's likely that MILLIONS of CHRISTIAN HETEROS engage in SODOMY. If you aren't familiar with this word either, please ask your male friends or use a DICTIONARY.
Just more Christian HYPOCRISY.
Please let us know when you publish your OWN dictionary. You are one of many Christians who seem completely unfamiliar with dictionaries when it comes to reading the Bible.
I hope you realize you are sinking your own case, making it weaker with every post.
"two sodomites." LOL
You of course realize that a man and a woman can commit sodomy as well right, that it is not exclusive to gay people, so there goes that argument out the window since men and women have $ex in that way. Are they going to make sure that the man and woman have only had straight $ex before services are provided , and how would you know. By the same token, I know a gay couple that one was wounded in Iraq, and CANNOT have $ex, since that part of his body is gone, the other does not have $ex for another reason, so they are a gay couple, but do not have $ex....your argument fails for simply being ignorant.
Care to try a cojent, rational argument?
"Stop talking about the teachings of Jesus as if you have any idea of what He taught. "
Back atcha, Corn Pone. You got that translated, edited hearsay so far up your backside that it inhibits your rational thought
"A Christian is supposed to love, yes, but he also has a responsibility to rebuke unrighteousness and to denounce what is wrong. "
And iron age sheep molesters were the final word on right and wrong?
"Neither can he take part in anything that would endorse sin. "
Sin is a man made concept, old man
"If that particular Christian's conscience will not permit him to take an action that he feels would be endorsing sin, then he has an obligation not to act in that way – whether it is in a business or not."
serving people is endorsing sin? my gosh, your god is punk
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.