Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

False actually, or more to point skewed data set. Worldwide, AIDS is spread more by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. The US is actually an outlier when it comes to the orientation vector for the spread of AIDS. Furthermore, the issue of the church is also skewed. Not only by the opportunity factor, but also by the fact that boys rarely report sexual assualt by women, and girls report sexual assault by men way less than boys report.

Take God out of the picture and you still have the concept of informed consent. Which automatically precludes animals and younger children. It gets murky once we get into the teens. After all, the church as well as society as a whole placed adulthood at around 13 to 15. As soon as a girl had a period, she was an adult.

 

The overwhelming vast majority of men who mole at boys are heterosexual males. The majority of aids cases worldwide are among heterosexuals.

 

You do realize that by that the same logic, given marriage law, the 14th also precludes a ban on consanguineous marriage as well?

 

If you are going to dream, dream big lol

 

No doubt, as there are many more heterosexuals. My point stands, according to the CDC, 67% of new AIDS cases are with gay men. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

Yet this behavior, in men at least statistically as deadly as smoking, is promoted to our youth as a legitimate, healthy alternative. AIDS aside, there are a host of other STDs gay men are much more vulnerable to. It's almost like God knew what He was talking about, usually when He prohibits something He's saying, "Don't hurt yourself".

Aren't we in the US?

The RCC scandals are absolutely relevant, with their unbiblical celibate clergy policy, gays have long been attracted to the priesthood. Here is a Catholic bishop who acknowledges a homosexual subculture in the church is behind the abuse scandals:

https://www.ncronline.org/news/acco...rge-homosexual-subculture-clergy-abuse-crisis

 

Celebrated, but imperfect. What God allows He doesn't always sanction. Solomon went against God's plan, with disastrous consequences.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Solomon-wives-concubines.html

 

And decreasing, not that you actually care about the AIDS issue other than using it as a weapon — like you do with your chosen religious affiliation — but the vast majority of new AIDS cases are happening within racial groups that are more likely to be poor, more likely to be religious, and more likely to be homophobic

Worldwide AIDS is a heterosexual issue, so god is saying don’t hurt yourself by having heterosexual sex — by your metrics? He’s such a genius

BTW, no one is saying homosexuality is a healthy alternative, rather that gay people shouldn’t be stigmatized because they are gay. I know you get confused (agenda is blinding I guess), just trying to clear that up for you.

 

I'm glad deaths from AIDS are decreasing, and is no longer a death sentence. I doubt many of those new AIDS cases are from practicing, serious Christians.

And none of that would be happening either if people did sex God's way, between one man and one woman in a life long marriage relationship. After all, He invented sex. A fire is good in a fireplace, but not in an attic.

Stating facts is stigmatizing? Many of us don't approve of the homosexual agenda, like you don't approve of the Christian one. Does that mean you are stigmatizing Christians?

 

They are contained in groups that have much higher instances of bigotry and poverty. Two factors linked to the transmission of AIDS.

Again, which god are your referring to? And until your can prove the existence of one specific god “he” didn’t invent anything.

Facts and statistics are a great thing for education and policy. Most anti-gay groups / individuals use it as a weapon and manipulate data to conform to their narrative.

And I have no problem with Christians, everyone should be able to hold whatever beliefs they chose to have, I have a problem when they use religious text — typically taken out of context or meaning — and attempt to subjugate others with it — typically while not applying those same texts to themselves.

Gay people have been proven to exist, god has never been proven to exist

 

No, as those bans pass strict scrutiny.

 

How so? Since legal marriage does not require love, sex, or procreation, nor do those things require marriage, what legitimate reason is there to deny the legal institution to consanguineous couples? It is more legitimate to ban consanguineous procreation than the legal institution of marriage.

 

It serves a legitimate state interest. Incest leads to genetic defects. Incrstual relationships are often coercive. Banning them passes strict scrutiny for these reasons.

See above

Both are legitimate for the reasons outlined above.

 

Name the atheist founders.

Had the US been founded as a theocracy, or had God ever declared theocracy the only acceptable form of government, or were the Constitution the law by which the People are governed rather than the law by which the People rule the government, the question might be problematic; things being what they are, not so much.

Take God out of the picture and consent doesn't matter a lick, because might makes right.

 

Interesting you think facts and the gay agenda are two opposing things.

The only ones taking the Bible out of context are those trying to use it to justify what the Bible calls an abomination.

Why don't you start a thread on the religion forum about that.

 

We already have other laws that cover coerscive relationships and actions. The fact of blood relationship does nothing to change the nature of coercion. Sex is irrelative to the legal status of marriage, thus the argument of genetic defects is a moot point. The genetic defects issue would occur in a pair having sex regardless of whether or not a legal marriage was present. Furthermore the genetic defect is irrelevant for same sex couples and those where one or both are sterile. So what basis is there for denying such a legal status to consanguineous couples? All the bases are already covered.

 

Incest carries with it an inherent coercive nature. Bans on incest marriage serve a legitimate state interest thus they are legal.

.
No it’s isn’t. It’s another legitimate state interest, which is why the bans are legal.

No, the bases aren’t covered, as I’ve pointed out. Bans on incestual marriage pass strict scrutiny for the reasons outlined.

 

How stupid to have a religion that isn't fully integrated into every part of your life..

 

As a percentage, far more homosexuals molest boys and contract AIDS. Why would a heterosexual male go after a little boy?

 

No they don’t.

You have to ask them. But the fact remains, the overwhelming vast majority of men who molest boys are heterosexual, and the overwhelming vast majority of aids cases in humans are among heterosexuals.

 

Argue with the CDC.

Irrelevant, not as a percentage.

 

Why? You were the one who was wrong, and you are the one I corrected.

Yes, as a percentage.

 

I specifically said manipulation of data. You use data points that are not correlated and then assert them as a correlation.

Isn't that in Leviticus, the part had to kill himself in order to erase it?

Like I said, you can’t even abide by your own rules in order to attack gay people

Why would I do that?

 

If you need an invisible sky fairy to tell you what is right or wrong you have some serious mental health issues.

 

Another thread demonizing homosexuals.

 

The molestation thing is a bold face lie. When you have to resort to those — stating metrics that do not even standup to basic scrutiny — you entire narrative has failed. And y’all are so confused as to why the movement towards gay rights has been so swift — it’s because all y’all have is lies.

Completely relevant.