Indiana Pizza Shop 1st to Publicly Say It Would Deny Same-Sex Service

[Arthur Brain]

I know nothing of the kind, Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, contrary to the natural function of the human body. It is psychological anomaly pure & simple. You can attempt to make excuses for it, you are also free to accept it as normal but, the physiology of homosexuality is far from normal behavior.



Only from you being dishonest with yourself.

Abnormal to you, abnormal to any heterosexual I'd say but then how many heterosexual practices would you describe as the same?

 

[rocketman]

Abnormal to you, abnormal to any heterosexual I'd say

Abnormal to the normal function of human physiology.

but then how many heterosexual practices would you describe as the same?

Same as what?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Same as what?

'Abnormal'. Don't play naïve.

 

[rocketman]

'Abnormal'. Don't play naïve.

There is nothing abnormal about heterosexual sex, one gender compliments the other and thereby procreation of the species is achieved which is the natural function of human body, male & female respectively. I am not playing naive at all, I did not understand what you meant so you can take it down a notch. We will not agree on this subject AB but, I am happy to converse with you on the subject.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There is nothing abnormal about heterosexual sex, one gender compliments the other and thereby procreation of the species is achieved which is the natural function of human body, male & female respectively. I am not playing naive at all, I did not understand what you meant so you can take it down a notch. We will not agree on this subject AB but, I am happy to converse with you on the subject.

Well, without being graphic on the subject there are plenty of common heterosexual practices that would hardly result in procreation, so are they just as 'abnormal' in turn?

 

[Stripe]

Homo-lovers will talk about anything, regardless of how disgusting it gets, rather than concede the facts.

It is not a practice that does not result in procreation that is against the law. It is not a feeling or an inclination that is against the law. It is the act of homosexual engagement that is against the law.

An act requires a choice to be made.

By definition, homosexuality is a choice. And in a nation of the free, people should be free to not act as they please; there should be no compulsion on a man to have to do anything not legally required. He should always be free to opt out.

 

[Granite]

Well, without being graphic on the subject there are plenty of common heterosexual practices that would hardly result in procreation, so are they just as 'abnormal' in turn?

It always, always, always seems to come back to this one thing. Bizarre and pathological obsession, I say.

 

[musterion]

Well, without being graphic on the subject there are plenty of common heterosexual practices that would hardly result in procreation, so are they just as 'abnormal' in turn?

Depends on what authority you're appealing to.

As has been stated in several other threads, the Word of God places no restrictions whatsoever on the sexual behavior of a believing husband and a believing wife. Not a single one. In fact, there's no such restrictions on marriage in any context; just the opposite, each is told to render due benevolence to the other (1 Cor 7:3) and husbands especially are to love and care for and nurture their wives as they do their own bodies (Eph 5:25, 28). And as far as I can recall off the top of my head...that's about it.

So I press the case no further than that. All you need know is that the New Testament forbids nothing between husband and wife. I personally take that to mean that because they are under grace and not law, what their own consciences agree is acceptable for them before the Lord, that is acceptable for them and no one else can judge it, should they somehow learn of it.

Now, what various religions of Christendom have discouraged or disallowed is irrelevant -- that is simply man making up rules on his own non-existent authority. The Bible gives none.

Not so with male and female homosexuals, as well as heterosexual fornication. Adultery goes without saying. All these is condemned as sin in all contexts.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Depends on what authority you're appealing to.

As has been stated in several other threads, the Word of God places no restrictions whatsoever on the sexual behavior of a believing husband and a believing wife. Not a single one. In fact, there's no such restrictions on marriage in any context; just the opposite, each is told to render due benevolence to the other (1 Cor 7:3) and husbands especially are to love and care for and nurture their wives as they do their own bodies (Eph 5:25, 28). And as far as I can recall off the top of my head...that's about it.

So I press the case no further than that. All you need know is that the New Testament forbids nothing between husband and wife. I personally take that to mean that because they are under grace and not law, what their own consciences agree is acceptable for them before the Lord, that is acceptable for them and no one else can judge it, should they somehow learn of it.

Now, what various religions of Christendom have discouraged or disallowed is irrelevant -- that is simply man making up rules on his own non-existent authority. The Bible gives none.

Not so with male and female homosexuals, as well as heterosexual fornication. Adultery goes without saying. All these is condemned as sin in all contexts.

Well, if you're talking about 'sin' as oppose to 'sexual abnormality' then wouldn't that comprise of any sort of heterosexual relations outside of wedlock from your position? That's rather a separate tangent.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Homo-lovers will talk about anything, regardless of how disgusting it gets, rather than concede the facts.

It is not a practice that does not result in procreation that is against the law. It is not a feeling or an inclination that is against the law. It is the act of homosexual engagement that is against the law.

An act requires a choice to be made.

By definition, homosexuality is a choice. And in a nation of the free, people should be free to not act as they please; there should be no compulsion on a man to have to do anything not legally required. He should always be free to opt out.

You're not coming up with facts, you're coming up with sound bites as per usual. The fact of the matter is that if you have no inclination towards your own gender then there's no possibility to commit a homosexual act in the first place.

If you don't at the very least get that much then you'd be "better off" trying to school barristers about the legal profession while betraying an ignorance of even the basics of law. (Remember that embarrassment of a thread with TH?)

 

[TomO]

Here’s How The Embattled Owners Of Memories Pizza Plan To Share Their Newfound Fortune

“They revealed they are set to share their new fortune with disabled children, a women’s help group, firefighters, police trusts, Christian churches, and Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, 70, who was fined after declaring she would not serve a gay wedding.”

 

[musterion]

Well, if you're talking about 'sin' as oppose to 'sexual abnormality' then wouldn't that comprise of any sort of heterosexual relations outside of wedlock from your position? That's rather a separate tangent.

I was speaking in the context of marriage because you're the one who brought up straight couples engaging in who-knows-what. Since I believe that relations only between husband and wife are legitimate for members of the Body of Christ, that's the frame around my comment.

Did you ever answer my question on how you view the Bible? Is it the Word of God, or not?

 

[Granite]

Well, if you're talking about 'sin' as oppose to 'sexual abnormality' then wouldn't that comprise of any sort of heterosexual relations outside of wedlock from your position? That's rather a separate tangent.

They consider them the same thing.

 

[shagster01]

You know why I can't take the religious right seriously? Because they rant about how sexual immorality is so bad, yet never seem to introduce legislation to criminalize adultery, which is a FAR bigger problem than homosexuality.

Why is that? Because you don't want to arrest half of the church goers?

 

[Granite]

You know why I can't take the religious right seriously? Because they rant about how sexual immorality is so bad, yet never seem to introduce legislation to criminalize adultery, which is a FAR bigger problem than homosexuality.

Why is that? Because you don't want to arrest half of the church goers?

They don't go after greed or obesity either and seem pretty flippant when it comes to the poor and needy. (Also, torture, pre-emptive war, xenophobia, and nuclear proliferation: Do I even need to go on?) Bottom line, these people are impossible to take seriously when it comes to their ostensible concern for "morality." It's dangerous to underestimate their will, however--that much I take quite seriously.

 

[musterion]

You know why I can't take the religious right seriously? Because they rant about how sexual immorality is so bad, yet never seem to introduce legislation to criminalize adultery, which is a FAR bigger problem than homosexuality.

Such laws have long been on the books and still are in some states. They're just typically not enforced anymore, or liberals have had them repealed.

The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[128] In the United States, laws vary from state to state. Up until the mid 20th century most US states (especially Southern and Northeastern states) had laws against fornication, adultery or cohabitation. These laws have gradually been abolished or struck down by courts as unconstitutional.[129][130][131] Pennsylvania abolished its fornication and adultery laws in 1973.[132]

States which repealed their adultery laws in recent years include West Virginia in 2010,[133] Colorado in 2013,[134] and New Hampshire in 2014.[135]

Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[136][137] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[138] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[139] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[140] to life sentence (Michigan).[141] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[142][143][144]

See, if, say, Ted Cruz said he's push for adultery laws, you'd say "This is why I can't take the religious right seriously."

You shouldn't smoke weed so early in the day.

 

[Granite]

If Cruz did that I'd say "Well, sure; that figures." I doubt even he's fool enough to waste his time with a stunt like that though.

 

[The Barbarian]

Xenophobia and violence to outsiders is normal also. Jealousy, hatred, dishonesty, and much else that is wrong, is "normal."

Nature is, as any biologist will tell you, no guide to decent human conduct.

 

[Stripe]

They ... never seem to introduce legislation to criminalize adultery.

:yawn:

Adultery should be a criminal offense as well.

They don't go after greed or obesity.

Greed and obesity should not be criminal offenses.

...pretty flippant when it comes to the poor and needy.

Nope. that's just you desperate to express your hatred.

Do I even need to go on?

We know you will. :troll:

It's dangerous to underestimate their will, however--that much I take quite seriously.

So man up and face those you hate instead of pretending to ignore them, coward. :loser:

 

[shagster01]

:yawn:

Adultery should be a criminal offense as well.
Greed and obesity should not be criminal offenses.

Well, then why isn't every other thread in the politics section about adultery (aka, "The Bigger Problem")?