"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Astreja]

I wouldn’t be so hostile as to say that I wouldn’t or couldn’t be acquaintances with someone who is homosexual.  That to me, seems more like intolerance.

As someone who identifies with the LGBT community, if you came to visit and told me I was a sinner you would be summarily ejected from my home, and never allowed to return.  I am under no obligation to give abusive people even the slightest benefit of a doubt, and if you think that self-care is "intolerance," so be it.

[Minimalist]

Who said anything about basing laws on it?

Fuckheads like this..... I'm sure he's a close personal friend of yours, Stevie.

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/prea...gs.ayMHjj0

A Christian preacher has claimed he wants gay people killed, but only if it is done as ‘humanely’ as possible.
Matt Powell, a 22-year-old religious activist, has said he believes we should follow the Bible on dealing with the LGBTI community.
He thinks homosexuality is ‘disgusting’ and the government should ‘execute’ them.

He certainly sounds like as big as asshole as you do.

[SteveII]

So, does "not compelling objections" mean the beliefs are baseless? unreasoned? homophobic? bigoted? No. That's what your side of this issue does: mischaracterize and then bash the straw man with over-the-top labels. They somehow feel that if they understand the other side's position, then they have to admit something that they don't want to admit--namely that Christians beliefs are not inherently baseless, unreasonable, homophobic or bigoted. 

Also, the opinion of Christians =/= Christian beliefs derived from systematic theology and the development of sound doctrine.

Yes, actually, it does mean that it is unreasoned and bigoted. If your religion says that it is wrong for two men to love each other and be sexual or two women to love each other and be sexual, then it is your religion that is wrong. it really is that simple.

First, no, it is reasoned: 

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Second, beliefs cannot be bigoted, only people. 

big·ot·ed
ˈbiɡədəd/
adjective

1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
   

I am not intolerant to the opinions of others. I understand your opinion and respect those that hold it. It does not follow that I have to agree with your opinion or I am a bigot (which is what you need to be true for your charge above to be true).

[polymath257]

First, no, it is reasoned: 

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Second, beliefs cannot be bigoted, only people. 

big·ot·ed
ˈbiɡədəd/
adjective

1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
   

I am not intolerant to the opinions of others. I understand your opinion and respect those that hold it. It does not follow that I have to agree with your opinion or I am a bigot (which is what you need to be true for your charge above to be true).

1. Only in your system. Any system that is actually moral rejects this.
2. Again, any truly moral system rejects this.
3. The word sin is without true meaning. This is a null statement.
4. Only if marriage is disallowed for homosexuals. An immoral way to set things up.
5. Well, your result follows from your faulty assumptions.

Having a series of claims that are themselves illogical as a proof for an immoral claim is not using logic.

When people condemn gays and make it so they can't have the healthy, normal relationships with their partners that everyone else is allowed, that is bigotry.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't think that you rationalize to morality.   You may have to rationalize from moral principles for something which is a little different.  But I don't think that you get to those principles through logic.  How do you rationalize that it is wrong to kill others.   At best you may take a pragmatic approach, but a pragmatic approach, but being pragmatical doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral.  Otherwise your not saying that it is right or wrong, but efficient.  As well, the question doesn't even make sense in a subjective view of morality.

At a certain level, I agree. Logic alone doesn't say anything about morality. Nor does it say anything about hte other aspects of the real world. So, to discover things about the real world, you have to accept the uncertainty that solipsism could be the reality and go from our sensory data and scientific reasoning to see how the universe works. In the same way, for morality, we have to accept that compassion is the fundamental morality.

Morality is really based on the pursuit of an subjectively determined “ought”, not the identification of an objective, to the extent objective assessment is possible and reliable, “is”.  

Religion has always been a tool of deceit and browbeating for the benefit of those seeking to impose their own subjective “ought” upon others who do not agree by creating the framework to enable their  particular pet “ought” to be passed off as an “is”

---

Yes, actually, it does mean that it is unreasoned and bigoted. If your religion says that it is wrong for two men to love each other and be sexual or two women to love each other and be sexual, then it is your religion that is wrong. it really is that simple.

Second, beliefs cannot be bigoted, only people. 

[

I believe Christians are children of a lesser and immoral god and are therefore only fit to be worked to death as quickly as possible doing the most menial of tasks.

I am a perfectly fine and unbigoted human being since I act only out of beliefs that can not be bigoted.

[SteveII]

First, no, it is reasoned: 

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Second, beliefs cannot be bigoted, only people. 
big·ot·ed
ˈbiɡədəd/
adjective

1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
   

I am not intolerant to the opinions of others. I understand your opinion and respect those that hold it. It does not follow that I have to agree with your opinion or I am a bigot (which is what you need to be true for your charge above to be true).

1. Only in your system. Any system that is actually moral rejects this.
2. Again, any truly moral system rejects this.
3. The word sin is without true meaning. This is a null statement.
4. Only if marriage is disallowed for homosexuals. An immoral way to set things up.
5. Well, your result follows from your faulty assumptions.

Having a series of claims that are themselves illogical as a proof for an immoral claim is not using logic.

When people condemn gays and make it so they can't have the healthy, normal relationships with their partners that everyone else is allowed, that is bigotry.

You ENTIRELY missed my point from all my posts. I am not arguing that homosexual marriage is wrong. I am explaining the belief because most of you are not capable of even articulating the belief and pointing out that most of the charges are mischaracterizations and straw men--not much of a foundation for civil discourse. 

It is utter foolishness to argue with atheists about the foundation of a belief which starts with "Well, in the beginning God...".

I know happy gay people. By definition, my religious beliefs do not make me a bigot. You cannot win this point.

[polymath257]

You ENTIRELY missed my point from all my posts. I am not arguing that homosexual marriage is wrong. I am explaining the belief because most of you are not capable of even articulating the belief and pointing out that most of the charges are mischaracterizations and straw men--not much of a foundation for civil discourse. 

It is utter foolishness to argue with atheists about the foundation of a belief which starts with "Well, in the beginning God...".

I know happy gay people. My religious beliefs do not make me a bigot--by definition. You cannot win this point.

I'd argue it is utter foolishness to argue about any belief that starts with 'In the beginning God..'.

It is a foolish start to any argument.

I'd point out that many of those who argued against miscegenation did so from a Biblical basis and were quite logical in their reasoning. But they were still bigots.

[Brian37]

Guess what Franky, we are NOT a theocracy so it doesn't mater what you fucking think!

No we are a democratic republic which means it does matter what he thinks.

No it does not. His religion is not our official state religion, America does not have a government mandated religion. Yes we are a democratic republic, so the fuck what? We are still NOT a theocracy! Go read the oath of office in the Constitution, "no religious test"..... FYI "So Help me God" IS NOT WRITTEN into that section nor is it mandatory.

I am not required by the federal government to condemn gays. FUCK HIM and fuck any asshole who would use sgovernment to oppress minorities. LGBT do not ow him shit. They are equal citizens. Don't like that? I could give a shit less. If you support LGBT then the right thing to do is to tell him to fuck off. Does he have a legal right to act like a dick? Yes, and the sane have the right to call him one.

[The Industrial Atheist]

It would help the case of religious people if they could make a rational argument for the immorality of gay sex. But they can't do that. That's why it's bigoted.

I don't think that you rationalize to morality.   You may have to rationalize from moral principles for something which is a little different.  But I don't think that you get to those principles through logic.  How do you rationalize that it is wrong to kill others.   At best you may take a pragmatic approach, but a pragmatic approach, but being pragmatical doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral.  Otherwise your not saying that it is right or wrong, but efficient.  As well, the question doesn't even make sense in a subjective view of morality.

Killing others causes objective harm, the pain and suffering of both the person that is killed and their families and loved ones. Two men or two women having sex does not, unless you count a feeling that something is icky as objective harm.

[RoadRunner79]

No we are a democratic republic which means it does matter what he thinks.

No it does not. His religion is not our official state religion, America does not have a government mandated religion. Yes we are a democratic republic, so the fuck what? We are still NOT a theocracy! Go read the oath of office in the Constitution, "no religious test"..... FYI "So Help me God" IS NOT WRITTEN into that section nor is it mandatory.

I am not required by the federal government to condemn gays. FUCK HIM and fuck any asshole who would use sgovernment to oppress minorities. LGBT do not ow him shit. They are equal citizens. Don't like that? I could give a shit less. If you support LGBT then the right thing to do is to tell him to fuck off. Does he have a legal right to act like a dick? Yes, and the sane have the right to call him one.

I don't think you understand how a democratic republic works Brian.   The rest of your post doesn't have anything to do with what I said, and is just a straw man attack.