That it may have some biological aspects does not necessarily mean that it is genetic, for a start.
What do you define as a “low rate”? And something needn’t be genetic to be biological. Hormone exposure in utero influences fetal development, which is not dependent on the genetics of the fetus.
I’d like to see some of these studies- the ones I had read showed the opposite- that while not 100%, identical twins have the same sexual orientation at a considerably greater percentage then non-identical twins.
If true, this would support the hypothesis that sexual orientation involves both genetic and environmental factors.
You are joking, right? That case turned on whether a religious employer had the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. If they’d decided otherwise you would have started another thread decrying the decision because your church might be “forced” to hire an atheist.
I can pretty much assure you that nobody has ever tried to sue because they were discriminated against in a social setting in a private home. However, since you ask…
Well, you see, evidence can easily be manipulated, not to mention that studies rarely result in “non-disputal” facts - whatever the hell those are.
Wong. You, as a Christian, get protection from discrimination everywhere. Sexual orientation is protected from discrimination only in some locations. No business can refuse to service you on account of your Christianity. It’s been that way for close to 50 years now, but it’s interesting we don’t hear you whining about those poor oppressed business owners who aren’t allowed to discriminate against you.
It seems that every time you point to a cite, it opposes what you’re trying to argue. Same here.
This ruling says that religious organizations (churches) can require certain employees to share their religious views. For example, a Christian school can require that a teacher be a Christian. All the Christians were rejoicing about the decision!
Do you even read your own cites?
Do you ever read your cites, or do you just vomit up whatever google search appeals to you?
Here’s the actual SC opinion on teh matter http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL
Interesting pieces
For GEEPERS the SC said –> 'The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way."
[QUOTE=GEEPERS]
A true born again believer will want to please God and fight the natural fleshly desires to sin. That is what separates us from the unsaved. Also, there are degrees of sin each with various degrees of consequence and damage. **Sexual sin is particularly called out many times in the Bible because it can cause great damage to both the spirit and the physical body. **
1 John 5:16-17 certainly shows degrees of sin.
[/QUOTE]
And Exodus 20:16 mentions something about bearing false witness. So please show that that’s why it was mentioned many times in the Bible as I’ve never seen any passage that states that’s why the reason it was mentioned.
uhhh- did you read that article or just post the headline - this is folks working for a religious (private) institution (church owned school or hospital) can’t sue if they are fired for breaking the requirements of said church or school.
So, a teacher at a catholic school cannot sue the catholic school for discrimation if they are fired for not following the catholic requirements.
Seems this is exactly the opposite of what you intended - again.
This is not about a **Public **school being sued/not sued for discrimation if they refuse to hire a ‘christian/muslim/etc’ based soley on that factor (or shown to have a history of that type of discrimination.
You can’t choose your race, any more than you can choose your sex.
The sin of miscegenation is when you choose to pollute the races by marrying someone of a different race. There’s plenty of Biblical justification for construing that as a sin, starting with the Tower of Babel and the story of Ham. Look it up.
Racial discrimination is a moral offense; I’ll agree with you. I’ll go one further, though, and say that discrimination based on sexual preference (as long as we’re talking about preference for consenting adults) is also a moral offense.
Just as there’s Biblical justification for considering acts of man-on-man sex to be sins (where the justification is for hating lesbians I dunno), there’s also justification for considering mixed-race marriages a sin. Decent, moral people, however, realize that these are just post-hoc arguments created to buttress bigotry. The good atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, Muslims, and Pagans (etc.) figure out what’s good and bad independently of what a book tells them.
Polycarp didn’t repeat; he built on. Consider which title has more to do with Geeper’s posts.
Uh, excuse me:
Don’t you go trying to take away my trophy.
but Christ wasn’t a Christian
16 million members isn’t a good example of mainstream Christianity from a country with 300 million citizens, of which, 78% profess some kind of Christian belief. Since most of the polls I see these days show over half of Americans support gay marriages, surely a good portion of them are representing mainstream America and Christians than oppose their rights.
And there is much contention in the SBC group, they could splinter away their present 16 million members quite easily. I’m amused how much bickering is going on with that group, with even just the name itself and what they want to call themselves. They are holding on, I suppose, just so they can still claim to be the largest Protestant group, despite not getting along very well.
As a side note, the primary reason the SBC formed in 1845 was to defend slavery. And they had plenty of scripture support, both in the OT and NT to back up that position. They didn’t even apologize for that position and their past history until around 1995.
The Landscape Survey “confirms that the US is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%."
If you want well researched replies then don’t expect me to give you rapid replies or respond to most of the questions. A dozen responses in less than 10 minutes. Then I make another post, and there’s 10-20 more so now I’m already 30 replies in the hole from the beginning.
Funny thing is no one has really answered my original question. Should a Christian be forced to do something against their beliefs? The main responses are absolutely because the courts say so. That’s not an answer. Courts can be wrong and pass unjust laws. It’s the right of the people to protest the laws too.
I suspect if it was any non-religious organizations in the same situation, this debate would definitely not be completely one sided.
Damn technicalities
But the state of NM doesn’t forbid anyone from having a party for whatever reason they choose. In this case, a public declaration by two people of their love for one another.
Well, I’ll jump in on the side of the “poor, persecuted Christians” here. But I’m on record in numerous threads as saying that I don’t think it should be illegal for private businesses like this to discriminate. The government can’t do it, but private citizens should be able to.
I’m sure it’s a minority opinion on this MB, and just so you know, it’s not because I’m a Christian. I’m not. And I fully support SSM, too. But if some photographer doesn’t want to take someone’s picture, for whatever reason, he shouldn’t have to.
Well, you’re not forced to reply to anyone. It’s not like anyone’s getting gay-married here.
In any case, what’s society coming to when you can’t even maintain a simple unspoken gentlemen’s agreement? Back in the 1950s, this was never a problem. Starving Artist, back me up on this one.
It’s almost like you’re being discriminated against for your Christian lifestyle choice here. How horrible that must be.
To answer this - again -
No Christian is being ***forced ***to do anything.
A business owner is being required to follow the local laws and ordinances around running a business OR face a penalty.
They still have the right to choose not to follow said laws and pay whatever fines/penalties are appropriate…
and this requirement/choice/etc is not singularly aimed at ‘Christians’ - it is the same requirement for ALL business owners that serve the public.