Religion and LGBT Issues

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And here we have the crux of the argument:

If the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, and others, then the Church is a self-interested institution with self-interested individuals running it. As such, it is quite a human institution and we having faith that traditions are not warped over time is supremely naïve.

Like what traditions?

I'm not being specific, I am talking about church traditions in general.

If the Church acts on its own interests, what makes anyone think that the church can't change tradition in order to suit those interests or add new tradition based on interpretation of the scriptures?

Assuming that the church is acting on its own interests, if it seems advantageous to create a new tradition or interpret the scriptures in order to justify an action as "traditional", then the church will.

The problem with UMN's argument is that it depends on a flawed conception: that we must have faith that traditions are free of error, or in other words, that they have not deviated. While one should adhere to tradition if they are Christian, having faith that traditions are not corrupted or can't be corrupted is naïve.

[Neutraligon]

Which Church? It seems you presupposed yours was "The" Church, or the right one.

How do you know you haven't already fallen into the trap of some Eastern patriarchs' subjectivizations from a thousand years ago? Or that, before that, the rooting out of heresies like Arianism weren't misunderstandings? Or that, even farther back, Jesus misunderstood Jewish law and the prophets?

Subjectivity destroys your conception of purpose, and leaves us with Camus's "Absurd", which Felrik has been repeating for a while now.

As I said, that the consensus exists, and that these historical views can be traced back to the earliest Christian communities, shows that this is the traditional way.

Seems to me you are saying that the consensus of mere fallible humans is actually important, when previously you claimed that the opinions of a society (and a church is a society) do not matter. Please pick one.

Also, given that there where early Christian groups where divided since before the split, I am not sure this claim is accurate. Also, didn't you earlier claim there was something wrong with might makes right, but now you are arguing for it when saying they have to defend themselves? Finally, once again you are relying on humans that are fallible, how can you claim that those first early eastern orthodox priests where correct in their interpretation. Tradition does not make something correct, only old, especially when god has not chosen to show that eastern orthodox religion is the only correct one (or his attempt to do so failed, making him incompentent). Once again it seems your god, if it exists, has set up the situation to encourage what you call sinning.

Is there free will in heaven?

[Lost Memories]

It truly is incredible how perfectly the Christian god has set up a system that promotes "sinning." If god has a set of dictates he wishes us to follow, why set it down in an ancient book when there are tons of other ancient books, books that can be easily destroyed or lost. Why set it up so that his dictates are spread through fallible humans, just like all the other religions have dictates spread through fallible humans. Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good; why make the path narrow?

Hypothetically, think about what humanity would be if everything was crystal clear, and if there wasn't anything pushing us away from the crystal clear 'dictates and wishes' which are our best good. Wouldn't humanity act like will-less automations?

I am still failing to see the value of free will in this system.

Would you rather be an automation?
One could also argue that effort has value when it gets past an obstacle, no obstacle = no effort = no virtue. Maybe free will exists to allow the existence of virtue.

[Neutraligon]

It truly is incredible how perfectly the Christian god has set up a system that promotes "sinning." If god has a set of dictates he wishes us to follow, why set it down in an ancient book when there are tons of other ancient books, books that can be easily destroyed or lost. Why set it up so that his dictates are spread through fallible humans, just like all the other religions have dictates spread through fallible humans. Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good; why make the path narrow?

Hypothetically, think about what humanity would be if everything was crystal clear, and if there wasn't anything pushing us away from the crystal clear 'dictates and wishes' which are our best good. Wouldn't humanity act like will-less automations?

Seems like that is what god wants anyway, and Satan would suggest this is not the case. We could still make the choice, we would simply be making an informed choice.

I am still failing to see the value of free will in this system.

Would you rather be an automation?
One could also argue that effort has value when it gets past an obstacle, no obstacle = no effort = no virtue. Maybe free will exists to allow the existence of virtue.

I fail to see why virtue is a good thing in this type of system.

[Seperates]

See my edit.

This presupposes that suffering is intrinsically wrong.

Much like you presuppose god to be intrinsically good?

[United Marxist Nations]

As I said, that the consensus exists, and that these historical views can be traced back to the earliest Christian communities, shows that this is the traditional way.

Seems to me you are saying that the consensus of mere fallible humans is actually important, when previously you claimed that the opinions of a society (and a church is a society) do not matter. Please pick one.

Also, given that there where early Christian groups where divided since before the split, I am not sure this claim is accurate. Also, didn't you earlier claim there was something wrong with might makes right, but now you are arguing for it when saying they have to defend themselves? Finally, once again you are relying on humans that are fallible, how can you claim that those first early eastern orthodox priests where correct in their interpretation. Tradition does not make something correct, only old, especially when god has not chosen to show that eastern orthodox religion is the only correct one (or his attempt to do so failed, making him incompentent). Once again it seems your god, if it exists, has set up the situation to encourage what you call sinning.

Is there free will in heaven?

The humans are still fallible, but the Tradition they follow are infallible and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. As Christ says, not even the gates of Hell shall triumph against the Church.

We know the early Church was right because they had a direct link to the Holy Apostles, who directly experienced God in the form of the incarnation.

There is free will in heaven; because sin has been cleansed, no one chooses to do evil.

[Lost Memories]

Hypothetically, think about what humanity would be if everything was crystal clear, and if there wasn't anything pushing us away from the crystal clear 'dictates and wishes' which are our best good. Wouldn't humanity act like will-less automations?

Seems like that is what god wants anyway, and Satan would suggest this is not the case. We could still make the choice, we would simply be making an informed choice.

Automations can make choices? (informed or not) Isn't that a contraddiction? Which is it?

Would you rather be an automation?
One could also argue that effort has value when it gets past an obstacle, no obstacle = no effort = no virtue. Maybe free will exists to allow the existence of virtue.

I fail to see why virtue is a good thing in this type of system.

In this case virtue has the meaning of 'being able to figure out by ourselves what is good for us'. It's to show we're more than just puppets.
(I wasn't using virtue in any different sense than the common sense that word has, btw)

Why proving we aren't puppets has value? Maybe just pride, our pride as humans, and the pride of God in having created something better than puppets.

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me you are saying that the consensus of mere fallible humans is actually important, when previously you claimed that the opinions of a society (and a church is a society) do not matter. Please pick one.

Also, given that there where early Christian groups where divided since before the split, I am not sure this claim is accurate. Also, didn't you earlier claim there was something wrong with might makes right, but now you are arguing for it when saying they have to defend themselves? Finally, once again you are relying on humans that are fallible, how can you claim that those first early eastern orthodox priests where correct in their interpretation. Tradition does not make something correct, only old, especially when god has not chosen to show that eastern orthodox religion is the only correct one (or his attempt to do so failed, making him incompentent). Once again it seems your god, if it exists, has set up the situation to encourage what you call sinning.

Is there free will in heaven?

The humans are still fallible, but the Tradition they follow are infallible and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

And this should be believed because...why? How do you know it is thus protected, except that fallible humans claim it to be so.

As Christ says, not even the gates of Hell shall triumph against the Church.

Then there would not be so many different churches.

We know the early Church was right because they had a direct link to the Holy Apostles, who directly experienced God in the form of the incarnation.

The holy apostates where still fallible humans who could have misunderstood what they where hearing/seeing. Direct experience does not prevent mistake, you are still dependent on the fallible human to transmit accurately and without mistake. Plus, others make the same or similar claims.

There is free will in heaven; because sin has been cleansed, no one chooses to do evil.[/quote]
So why can this not be done on earth. Like I said it seems like god set this up specifically so that humans will sin. Either god wants humans to sin while on earth, in which case your interpretation of purpose is wrong as god wants it, or he does not, in which case he should be capable of changing it while allowing for free will, as he has done in heaven. Sin is a useless idea when god is both able and wants to make the change. The only reason sin can exist on earth is thus that god wants it to.

[Neutraligon]

Seems like that is what god wants anyway, and Satan would suggest this is not the case. We could still make the choice, we would simply be making an informed choice.

Automations can make choices? (informed or not) Isn't that a contraddiction? Which is it?

No, free choice is not the opposite of information. If I know that a god exists and wants me to do certain things, that does not prevent me from doing something else. Satan knew god existed and still rebelled after all.

I fail to see why virtue is a good thing in this type of system.

In this case virtue has the meaning of 'being able to figure out by ourselves what is good for us'. It's to show we're more than just puppets.
(I wasn't using virtue in any different sense than the common sense that word has, btw)

Why proving we aren't puppets has value? Maybe just pride, our pride as humans, and the pride of God in having created something better than puppets.

Why is that a good thing? What is so wrong with being puppets. I see no reason that such pride should exist, also didn't god condemn pride. If there is free will in heaven, and yet people do not sin, then I see no reason why that cannot also be true on earth. If there is no free will in heaven, then clearly free will is not something god desires as heaven is supposedly perfect.

[Lost Memories]

Automations can make choices? (informed or not) Isn't that a contraddiction? Which is it?

No, free choice is not the opposite of information.

It isn't only information, but also desires and things which push in the opposite direction, as you said before:
'Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good'
That is more than just lacking informations. It's an other possible outcome, if there is only one possible outcome there isn't much room to any choice, free or not.

If I know that a god exists and wants me to do certain things, that does not prevent me from doing something else. Satan knew god existed and still rebelled after all.

I'm going to continue on the line we started from, not only crystal clear messages, but also lack of faults and ability to sin.

How would you end up doing something else if there weren't desires and such to push you over a different direction?
A perfect being, as you suggested, would not have such faults to lead them to make errors.

'that does not prevent me from doing something else'
That would be true, if all you had was the knowledge of the existence of god while being still faulted with desires and such.
But the lack of desires and such would indeed prevent you from doing something else.

In this case virtue has the meaning of 'being able to figure out by ourselves what is good for us'. It's to show we're more than just puppets.
(I wasn't using virtue in any different sense than the common sense that word has, btw)

Why proving we aren't puppets has value? Maybe just pride, our pride as humans, and the pride of God in having created something better than puppets.

I see no reason that such pride should exist, also didn't god condemn pride.

I was expecting you to make that error

It's not my fault if english is a language which oversimplifies everything, to the point of using the same word for different meanings.
The pride I used in my sentence had the meaning of = satisfaction in one's achievement. (which isn't a sin)
The capital sin of pride, also called superbia, has the meaning of = overstimation of one self's value, to the point of becoming blind to the value of others, cause one can see only their overstimated value.

Why is that a good thing? What is so wrong with being puppets.

Personally having possession/control over my own agency feels more fullfilling than being a perfect puppet. Guess I like fulfillment, and others thinking not being a puppet is good may be thinking something similar, but I can't know what others think.

From a purely fictional point of view, perfect puppets were already made, those are the angels, guess God wanted to try something different. Who knows.

No idea about heaven, it's all speculation.
'If there is free will in heaven, and yet people do not sin, then I see no reason why that cannot also be true on earth'
I see no reason too, maybe it's just a matter of effort to make it happen on earth too.
'If there is no free will in heaven, then clearly free will is not something god desires as heaven is supposedly perfect.'
No idea about this, the first option looks better.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I was expecting you to make that error

It's not my fault if english is a language which oversimplifies everything, to the point of using the same word for different meanings.
The pride I used in my sentence had the meaning of = satisfaction in one's achievement. (which isn't a sin)
The capital sin of pride, also called superbia, has the meaning of = overstimation of one self's value, to the point of becoming blind to the value of others, cause one can see only their overstimated value.

The closest word in English to superbia (or soberbia in Spanish) is arrogance.

[Neutraligon]

No, free choice is not the opposite of information.

It isn't only information, but also desires and things which push in the opposite direction, as you said before:
'Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good'
That is more than just lacking informations. It's an other possible outcome, if there is only one possible outcome there isn't much room to any choice, free or not.

Where did I say there was only one outcome. I asked for there to be information, for god to prove that he exists in a way that is obvious to overyone. Being all knowing he should be able to know exactly what would convince me he is real. Does that mean i will agree with his dictates or obey him, hell no, hence free will continues to exist and humans continue to not be automatons.

If I know that a god exists and wants me to do certain things, that does not prevent me from doing something else. Satan knew god existed and still rebelled after all.

I'm going to continue on the line we started from, not only crystal clear messages, but also lack of faults and ability to sin.

That was not where we originally started. Also, I fail to see why an all powerful god is unable to make it so that not only do we not sin, but also that we are no automatons.

How would you end up doing something else if there weren't desires and such to push you over a different direction?

No idea, supposedly an all powerful god would be able to do so. I still fail to see why there is something wrong with being an automaton given the scenario.

A perfect being, as you suggested, would not have such faults to lead them to make errors.

So why did god create such a shit scenario where we are dependent on fallible human beings to pass on his rules. Once again god seems to set up the situation to have humans sin.

'that does not prevent me from doing something else'
That would be true, if all you had was the knowledge of the existence of god while being still faulted with desires and such.
But the lack of desires and such would indeed prevent you from doing something else.

Then in heaven people are automatons and as such god wishes such. Since what god wants is good, then clearly being automatons is good.

Here is the thing. If people in heaven have free will and do not want to sin then clearly this is what god wants and these people are automatons as you claim, thus being automatons is good. If there is free will in heaven and people sin then how is it any different from earth, in which case why send people to hell. If there is no free will in heaven then clearly being automatons is good. Either way in the above scenario you have yet to show why free will is good or being automatons is not what god wants.

I see no reason that such pride should exist, also didn't god condemn pride.

I was expecting you to make that error

Then you should be more clear. It is not my fault you failed to communicate coherently. You also still have not shown why being a puppet is bad in this scenario

It's not my fault if english is a language which oversimplifies everything, to the point of using the same word for different meanings.

Then you should have made yourself clear by explaining the usage. This is still your problem as you were not being clear in wording.

The pride I used in my sentence had the meaning of = satisfaction in one's achievement. (which isn't a sin)

Why should this be a good thing, why should one be satisfied in one's achievements?

Why is that a good thing? What is so wrong with being puppets.

Personally having possession/control over my own agency feels more fullfilling than being a perfect puppet. [/quote] So?

Guess I like fulfillment, and others thinking not being a puppet is good may be thinking something similar, but I can't know what others think. [/quote ]However in the scenario we have been talking about your desires, your likes are unimportant.

From a purely fictional point of view, perfect puppets were already made, those are the angels, guess God wanted to try something different. Who knows.

Then god is at fault for not fixes the problems he created.

No idea about heaven, it's all speculation.
'If there is free will in heaven, and yet people do not sin, then I see no reason why that cannot also be true on earth'
I see no reason too, maybe it's just a matter of effort to make it happen on earth too.
'If there is no free will in heaven, then clearly free will is not something god desires as heaven is supposedly perfect.'
No idea about this, the first option looks better.

And yet that is not the case.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. My first argument is that god has set up a system that seems designed to not only let humans sin, but to encourage it. Free will is not sufficient justification due to the supposed existence of heaven, where no one sins. If no one sins in heaven yet has free will, then this should also be possible on earth, in which case it is gods own decision that allows sin to exist and his own system that encourages sin. If free will does not exist in heaven then clearly god does not care about free will, in which case there is no reason for it to exist on earth. Second that the god described should be able to set the system up so that such a thing is not the case by not relying on fallible humans like the church to dictate what they claim he wants. Third that the god described is evil based on my own opinions and the actions he has supposedly taken/not taken.

[United Marxist Nations]

God allows us to reject him cleansing of sin. He can cleanse people of sin through sacraments and the repentance of people. That is how you get to heaven in the first place.

[Neutraligon]

God allows us to reject him cleansing of sin. He can cleanse people of sin through sacraments and the repentance of people. That is how you get to heaven in the first place.

Can he not cleanse people in other ways?

You still have not answered the questions of why we should trust the Tradition of the church given that tradition is still followed by fallible humans, and that even if the people originating that tradition where divinely inspired, that still depends on us accepting that they did not make mistakes understanding the revelation, or mistakes in passing it on.

Also once again why do you wish for a theocracy given what you said previously, that the actions of a society are unimportant?
Finally you have not answered to the claim that god and the church by forcing the laws of god are doing might makes right, something you previously claimed was wrong. How do you justify these two contradictory views.

[United Marxist Nations]

God allows us to reject him cleansing of sin. He can cleanse people of sin through sacraments and the repentance of people. That is how you get to heaven in the first place.

Can he not cleanse people in other ways?

You still have not answered the questions of why we should trust the Tradition of the church given that tradition is still followed by fallible humans, and that even if the people originating that tradition where divinely inspired, that still depends on us accepting that they did not make mistakes understanding the revelation, or mistakes in passing it on.

Also once again why do you wish for a theocracy given what you said previously, that the actions of a society are unimportant?
Finally you have not answered to the claim that god and the church by forcing the laws of god are doing might makes right, something you previously claimed was wrong. How do you justify these two contradictory views.

He will make exceptions for cases like martyrs where people have put exceptional trust in Him.

Because Christ corrected their mistakes.

I didn't say the actions of a society are unimportant, I said the consensus of society on ethics is unimportant to the issue of whether those issues are correct.

[Neutraligon]

Can he not cleanse people in other ways?

You still have not answered the questions of why we should trust the Tradition of the church given that tradition is still followed by fallible humans, and that even if the people originating that tradition where divinely inspired, that still depends on us accepting that they did not make mistakes understanding the revelation, or mistakes in passing it on.

Also once again why do you wish for a theocracy given what you said previously, that the actions of a society are unimportant?
Finally you have not answered to the claim that god and the church by forcing the laws of god are doing might makes right, something you previously claimed was wrong. How do you justify these two contradictory views.

He will make exceptions for cases like martyrs where people have put exceptional trust in Him.

Again there are not other methods? Seems designed to encourage sin.

Because Christ corrected their mistakes.

Many claim the Eastern orthodox church is wrong, how do we know this is not Christ correcting the mistakes. In fact if this where the case, tradition would be a problem for the orthodox church since clearly Jesus's correction would go against tradition.

I didn't say the actions of a society are unimportant, I said the consensus of society on ethics is unimportant to the issue of whether those issues are correct.

So once again why do you wish to create a theocracy given that the consensus of society on ethics is unimportant. A theocracy is still a society.

You have said sin does not exist in heaven but free will does. Is god unable to do the same thing on earth?

[United Marxist Nations]

He will make exceptions for cases like martyrs where people have put exceptional trust in Him.

Again there are not other methods

Because Christ corrected their mistakes.

Many claim the Eastern orthodox church is wrong, how do we know this is not Christ correcting the mistakes.

I didn't say the actions of a society are unimportant, I said the consensus of society on ethics is unimportant to the issue of whether those issues are correct.

So once again why do you wish to create a theocracy given that the consensus of society on ethics is unimportant. A theocracy is still a society.

The reason God cleanses some people of sin is because they show devotion and love to Him. That is, because they show a desire to be cleansed of sin. He's not going to force you to be cleansed of sin if you don't want to be.

Because these people do not have a line to Holy Tradition or Apostolic Succession.

As I said, because I want to create a society which creates cultural norms that are more likely to lead people to religious devotion.

[Neutraligon]

Again there are not other methods

Many claim the Eastern orthodox church is wrong, how do we know this is not Christ correcting the mistakes.

So once again why do you wish to create a theocracy given that the consensus of society on ethics is unimportant. A theocracy is still a society.

The reason God cleanses some people of sin is because they show devotion and love to Him. That is, because they show a desire to be cleansed of sin. He's not going to force you to be cleansed of sin if you don't want to be.

SO basically confirmation bias, he cleanses only those who already believe. Once again this system is morally bankrupt, easily allows for and encourages sin, and also makes it so people are willing to listen to con-artists.

Because these people do not have a line to Holy Tradition or Apostolic Succession.

The catholic church disagrees, and given that Jesus correcting this would go against tradition, then tradition is once again a bad thing. Tell me, what do you think would happen if a few (but not all) members of the church hiearchy came forward to say Jesus said "we have been wrong in condemning homosexuality, god does not think it should be condemned." How do you determine if Jesus really made that correction?

As I said, because I want to create a society which creates cultural norms that are more likely to lead people to religious devotion.

Yet consensus is society is useless, thus there is no reason to want this. You are putting forward contradicting views. The condemnation by those who believe in the church could claim the exact same thing that they are trying to lead people to religious devotion, and yet you dismissed it.

[United Marxist Nations]

The reason God cleanses some people of sin is because they show devotion and love to Him. That is, because they show a desire to be cleansed of sin. He's not going to force you to be cleansed of sin if you don't want to be.

SO basically confirmation bias, he cleanses only those who already believe. Once again this system is morally bankrupt, easily allows for and encourages sin, and also makes it so people are willing to listen to con-artists.

Because these people do not have a line to Holy Tradition or Apostolic Succession.

The catholic church disagrees, and given that Jesus correcting this would go against tradition, then tradition is once again a bad thing.

As I said, because I want to create a society which creates cultural norms that are more likely to lead people to religious devotion.

Yet consensus is society is useless, thus there is no reason to want this. You are putting forward contradicting views. The condemnation by those who believe in the church could claim the exact same thing that they are trying to lead people to religious devotion, and yet you dismissed it.

>morally bankrupt
I'd like to hear you substantiate this. Also, can you suggest a better one? Would you prefer God just establish His eternal kingdom now and destroy all humanity? Because He can do that too.

The Catholic Church proves its false doctrine by not adhering to tradition.

Good job taking my words to mean something they don't mean again. Culture definitely alters people's behavior. The reason to want it is what I have been saying the whole time, because it would increase religious devotion, which would lead to more people being saved from hellfire.

[The Peoples Capitalist Republic]

I don't see how the Sacrament of Marriage harms anyone.

I said "negatively impacts the rights", not harms.
Harm falls under that umbrella, but isn't the entirety of it.

How does denying a non-essential item to a customer violate their rights?

Discrimination is a violation of rights.

While I think its ridiculous to not serve someone simply because they are gay, I must point out that if its my store, its my right to choose who I serve and who I don't serve. Also, discrimination isn't necessarily a violation of your rights. It depends on the situation. In this situation it is definitely not a violation of your rights because no one is forcing you to do anything against your will. It is however a violation of the store owner's rights to force them to serve a customer that they don't want to serve.

[Neutraligon]

SO basically confirmation bias, he cleanses only those who already believe. Once again this system is morally bankrupt, easily allows for and encourages sin, and also makes it so people are willing to listen to con-artists.

The catholic church disagrees, and given that Jesus correcting this would go against tradition, then tradition is once again a bad thing.

Yet consensus is society is useless, thus there is no reason to want this. You are putting forward contradicting views. The condemnation by those who believe in the church could claim the exact same thing that they are trying to lead people to religious devotion, and yet you dismissed it.

>morally bankrupt
I'd like to hear you substantiate this. Also, can you suggest a better one? Would you prefer God just establish His eternal kingdom now and destroy all humanity? Because He can do that too.

Sure, he creates heaven on earth and cleanse everyone of sin without killing a single person. Simple, he is allowing sin to exist despite being able to prevent it, and then blaiming people because he allows it to exist. In my opinion this is something that is morally bankrupt.

The Catholic Church proves its false doctrine by not adhering to tradition.

And they might not follow tradition because Jesus told them it was wrong to do so.

Good job taking my words to mean something they don't mean again. Culture definitely alters people's behavior.

Correct, so why is it then that humans condemning homosexuals while not condemning you for your sins should be ignored? After all

Society's consensus doesn't matter. It's still just a matter of opinion and taste. Calling that "right" or "wrong" is just pointless yammering and absurdity.

Thus what a church or a theocracy is also just pointless yammering and absurdity as a theocracy is also just the claims of a society.

The reason to want it is what I have been saying the whole time, because it would increase religious devotion, which would lead to more people being saved from hellfire.

And religious devotion is just opinion and taste. Calling it right or wrong is still just pointless yammering and absurdity.


As to tradition, for all I know the entire Orthodox faith is based not on God but on Satan whispering in the ears of the orthodox clergy that has become tradition. God has allowed this to happen in the past, why not know?

[Neutraligon]

I said "negatively impacts the rights", not harms.
Harm falls under that umbrella, but isn't the entirety of it.

Discrimination is a violation of rights.

While I think its ridiculous to not serve someone simply because they are gay, I must point out that if its my store, its my right to choose who I serve and who I don't serve.

This is not true in the US

Also, discrimination isn't necessarily a violation of your rights. It depends on the situation. In this situation it is definitely not a violation of your rights because no one is forcing you to do anything against your will.

Not being allowed to marry someone by the government due to us being the same sex does not force me to do something I do not want to do since I am not forced to marry period. It is still discrimination. Not being able to get gas at say, the only gas station in town, because they do not want to support the fact that I am married to somoene of the same sex is still discrimination.

It is however a violation of the store owner's rights to force them to serve a customer that they don't want to serve.

not according to US law.

[United Marxist Nations]

>morally bankrupt
I'd like to hear you substantiate this. Also, can you suggest a better one? Would you prefer God just establish His eternal kingdom now and destroy all humanity? Because He can do that too.

Sure, he creates heaven on earth and cleanse everyone of sin without killing a single person. Simple, he is allowing sin to exist despite being able to prevent it, and then blaiming people because he allows it to exist. In my opinion this is something that is morally bankrupt.

The Catholic Church proves its false doctrine by not adhering to tradition.

And they might not follow tradition because Jesus told them it was wrong to do so.

Good job taking my words to mean something they don't mean again. Culture definitely alters people's behavior.

Correct, so why is it then that humans condemning homosexuals while not condemning you for your sins should be ignored? After all

Society's consensus doesn't matter. It's still just a matter of opinion and taste. Calling that "right" or "wrong" is just pointless yammering and absurdity.

Thus what a church or a theocracy is also just pointless yammering and absurdity as a theocracy is also just the claims of a society.

The reason to want it is what I have been saying the whole time, because it would increase religious devotion, which would lead to more people being saved from hellfire.

And religious devotion is just opinion and taste. Calling it right or wrong is still just pointless yammering and absurdity.

To prevent sin, he would have to force us to accept him into our lives. People in heaven are able to be cleansed of sin because they love God. The process would not work on those who hate Him, because they are so alienated from His nature. The way to not be alienated from His nature is through faith, sacraments, and works.

Then they ought to say that that is why they aren't following it, instead of falsely claiming that they are.

No, because a Church or theocracy would be trying to steer people toward purpose, which, as I have been saying the whole time, purpose is the bringer about of morality. Therefore, by bringing more people to their purpose, you are doing a moral action.

You are completely twisting my words because you either have no idea what they mean or you are deliberately being stubborn, so I will say this one more time:

Whether a society believes something is moral or not, does not affect whether something is moral or not.

^This is what I meant by the statements you are referencing of mine.

[Minzerland II]

I don't see how the Sacrament of Marriage harms anyone.

I said "negatively impacts the rights", not harms.
Harm falls under that umbrella, but isn't the entirety of it.

How does denying a non-essential item to a customer violate their rights?

Discrimination is a violation of rights.

How is discrimination a violation of someone's rights?

[Seperates]

No, because a Church or theocracy would be trying to steer people toward purpose, which, as I have been saying the whole time, purpose is the bringer about of morality. Therefore, by bringing more people to their purpose, you are doing a moral action.

I've always found that kind of talk similar to capitalist and utilitarian mantras. Two sides of the same coin, I suppose.