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

[Minimalist]

I don't think you understand how we can get along just fine without your fucking god.

[RoadRunner79]

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 it 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.

That is a mis-characterization and I think you know it (feeling that something is "icky").   And I've been down this road before the presence or absence of objective harm, doesn't make something moral or immoral. It doesn't account for objective morality. Or say why it is wrong (only that it causes harm)    If you would like to make a thread, we can discuss why you think it does and I think that it does not.

[Joods]

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).

No. You're just intolerant to anyone who isn't a White, Anglo Saxon evangelical Christian, such as yourself.

[SteveII]

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).

No. You're just intolerant to anyone who isn't a White, Anglo Saxon evangelical Christian, such as yourself.

That's asinine...yet not altogether unexpected from a certain section of AF. Congrats on the civil discourse merit badge.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find the notion of civility in the face of genteel bigotry highly amusing..as A Southern Person. Howsabout we just keep calling assholes assholes, instead? Really bunches up their panties. As others have noted elsewhere..it;s almost as if they realize that they;re in the wrong, lol. They don;t wanna be bigots..but..by god, they just can;t help it.

The bigot in the OP article thinks god righteously shock and awed an entire city on account of the gay...which is probably the only reason he doesn;t have a penis in his mouth right now...generously assuming he doesn;t. It is friday, after all.

Others may have other excuses.

---

Killing others causes objective harm, the pain and suffering of both the person that it 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.

That is a mis-characterization and I think you know it (feeling that something is "icky").   And I've been down this road before the presence or absence of objective harm, doesn't make something moral or immoral. It doesn't account for objective morality. Or say why it is wrong (only that it causes harm)    If you would like to make a thread,  we can discuss why you think it does and I think that it does not.

In point of fact it does..and even the religious prohibition on teh gay refers to what is presumed to be an objective harm..to that persons soul and salvation..or more broadly to gods favor of an entire nation. If you could demonstrate that sucking a cock would actually lead to a person being tortured for all eternity then you would have the beginnings of a moral case against homosexuality. You can;t ofc, and I say beginnings..because theres still the nagging bit about how the harm is caused by some cocksucker in the sky, rather than being an inherent danger of sucking cock.

[The Industrial Atheist]

Killing others causes objective harm, the pain and suffering of both the person that it 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.

That is a mis-characterization and I think you know it (feeling that something is "icky").   And I've been down this road before the presence or absence of objective harm, doesn't make something moral or immoral. It doesn't account for objective morality. Or say why it is wrong (only that it causes harm)    If you would like to make a thread,  we can discuss why you think it does and I think that it does not.

We could add the caveat of unjustified harm. I don't think too many people believe killing in self defense is immoral. But I'm pretty sure we were talking about murder the whole time.

I'll take morality based off of an idea of preventing unjustified harm to others VS obeying the alleged words of an alleged god that are also often not even consistent with themselves any day.

[Brian37]

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.

Excuse me? You not liking my response is your baggage. OUR republic is one LGBT live under, and they are equal to any heterosexual couple. 

If you support LGBT the right thing to do is to stand up for them, and not the fucking asshole who wants to use government force to put them at the back of the bus.

We are not a pure democracy, we are a 3 branch system, legislative, judicial and executive, which are all separate and act as checks on the other two. The voters as well do not have absolute power and can be overruled by a SCOTUS case. We can also  remove amendments by a 2/3rds state vote majority. We are an  indirect democracy with representative government. And the power of impeachment. 

There is no social pecking order written into the Constitution mandated by the government.

[SteveII]

IMO, Christian belief on homosexuality has nothing to do with deriving some moral reasoning from "gay" factors/consequences/outcomes. I think it is a category error to think so. Instead, it is based on Divine Command Theory: God commanded it and that is a sufficient source of moral obligation. There is nothing left to argue about. Attempting to develop some sort of Christian natural moral argument is unnecessary and unconvincing at best. Atheists that demand an argument and in the absence of one shout "bigot" don't understand this.

[polymath257]

IMO, Christian belief on homosexuality has nothing to do with deriving some moral reasoning from "gay" factors/consequences/outcomes. I think it is a category error to think so. Instead, it is based on Divine Command Theory: God commanded it and that is a sufficient source of moral obligation. There is nothing left to argue about. Attempting to develop some sort of Christian natural moral argument is unnecessary and unconvincing at best. Atheists that demand an argument and in the absence of one shout "bigot" don't understand this.

Well, the point is that the Divine Command Theory of morality is useless and, frankly, immoral.

[The Grand Nudger]

IMO, Christian belief on homosexuality has nothing to do with deriving some moral reasoning from "gay" factors/consequences/outcomes. I think it is a category error to think so. Instead, it is based on Divine Command Theory: God commanded it and that is a sufficient source of moral obligation. There is nothing left to argue about. Attempting to develop some sort of Christian natural moral argument is unnecessary and unconvincing at best. Atheists that demand an argument and in the absence of one shout "bigot" don't understand this.

"Magic man said so" isn;t a moral reason, argument, or justification.  Its just an order.  Many orders are immoral. You may refuse to engage in the discussion, but that doesn;t mean that there isn;t anything to discuss.

As I said before..you are comfortable in your bigotry because you imagine your god to be similarly bigoted. Nevertheless, it makes you uneasy to be accurately classified for what you are. A case example of dissonance.