Your religion < My human rights

My rights include many things, but for this discussion, religion is the center of it. If someone has atheistic beliefs then that is fine, but they cannot override my religious beliefs simply because they don't have faith.

 

Just as your religious beliefs do not override their beliefs.

 

I never mentioned whether or not you believe in God.

I discussed your faith that you were "born homosexual"

Again, your story is anecdotal at best. Perhaps you have a need to believe that you were "born homosexual" as opposed to it being an acquired taste. Despite countless studies, not one has been able to prove the theory of "born homosexual"

That does not mean that you do not engage in acts with other men, it simply means that there is no way to prove if you chose that or were born that way.

I of course believe that no girly-men, no exposure to homosexual relationships during my youth, no gay-sex on tv, no uncle butchy getting too friendly with me etc etc all crafted me into a heterosexual. That is my belief much like your belief is that you were "born homosexual"

Neither of us can be proven right or wrong.

So, that puts the homosexual lifestyle about equal to religion. In other words, no Christian should be able to force one living the homosexual life to engage in prayer, to denounce gay sex etc. No govt should force it upon them either

On the flip side, no person of faith should be punished or silenced for speaking their opinions about those who chose the homosexual lifestyle. No person of faith should be forced to conduct business with those who chose the homosexual lifestyle. No govt should intercede

that is called equity

 

If you think it is a choice, then when did you chose to be hetrosexual?

My whole point is, how can I chose something that I didn't even know what it was.

I of course believe that no girly-men, no exposure to homosexual relationships during my youth, no gay-sex on tv, no uncle butchy getting too friendly with me etc etc all crafted me into a heterosexual. That is my belief much like your belief is that you were "born homosexual"

That is interesting, because I was raised in that same exact way. The only difference is that I am gay.

 

Because one is grounded in scientific observations of the world we live in while the other is something that even at it's foundations requires absolute faith to even exist as an idea, let alone something measurable or definable. If you think that gay folks are born that way, that may not be concrete science yet but the observations on which it is built are. Religion cannot even claim to have any concrete foundation for any of it's claims that aren't purely historic occurrences that don't have any connection to a god or divine influence other than what is implied by their texts.

Born that way or not, it really doesn't matter to me as far as my views on same-sex marriage simply because there has yet to be a logically crafted argument against it that isn't based on somebody getting offended that other folks are doing something differently than they or their religion thinks it should be done. That's great and all, but that's not even close to a basis for exclusionary laws on the basic rights afforded to people.

 

this thread is not about the marriage of those living the homsoexual lifestyle. There are hundreds of those threads in this forum about that aka-dead horse.

This thread is about religious rights and the rights of those 3% of the population who live a different chosen sexual lifestyle than 97%.

There is no fact-based argument that choosing gay sex should be given a priority over religious choice.

It's quite simple

No matter how hard I try, I cannot become a white male

No matter how hard I try, or fantasize, I cannot become female

but, with a snap of a finger, a homosexual can stop engaging in gay sex or a Muslim can stop following their faith.

 

You're right, which is why nobody is arguing that it should be given priority over religion. And there is no argument that religion should be given priority over other people's right either. So at most, they are equal, which means one should not infringe upon the other. Changing secular marriage laws that exist outside of religion does not infringe on the rights of the religious. That would require making laws about how religious institutions have to do things such as recognizing those marriages within their religion. I don't think most people are arguing that religious officials should have to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to or allow their church to be used for those types of ceremonies(although I wouldn't call separate meeting spaces to be same as the church itself).

Which of course changes nothing about being homosexual anymore than you can snap your fingers and become gay. I mean, I suppose I can play along while you keep trying to change the meaning of what these words mean and what they describe but that's not getting you anywhere because you're the only one who is buying that particular clearance isle special. And it is kind of fun for me because I get to make up funny phrases like clearance isle special.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Okay. I've always been good with that.

 

OK (and mods, we're taking a fun break for a moment)

now, I don't know where you live but where I am, there are no isles on clearance. Homes on the barrier isles all have 6 zeroes after the first number. Shoot, a few of the homes pay over $200k per year in property taxes (no kidding)

did you mean clearance aisle ?

Here's an example of a home on one of the many barrier isles

nothing clearance about that

 

No, I really was talking about isles. Around here the isle store always has stuff on the clearance rack. Got myself a nice 300 acre isle just last week.

But yeah, I meant aisle.

 

So then religion has a lawful privileged status. What if someone of a different religion says that their lawful religious rights are threatened by your lawful religious rights? Do you have a duel to the death to settle it?

 

It's not a legal status, it's constitutional. One can't use their rights to supersede another.

Duel? Sure, why not.

 

You really just used the "it's not delivery, it's Digiorno" argument on me? The Constitution is still pizza...I mean law.

Sir, this can only be settled by single combat...choose your topping!

 

18th century pistols!!