Top Anti-Gay Group Attempts Public Meeting Over LGBT Rights

[Resora]

[...]

Menassa, confirm/deny?

Depends which English translation the person is using.

In the Hebrew, no, the words used are not the same... however a Catholic who's KJV only... that argument could be made.

Actually, Catholics don't use the KJV, it's not compliant with Canon law and lacks the Apocrypha.

[Jormengand]

Why are these acts sinful?

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

Ah, but why did God command this? Also, since God is omnipotent, that means that he can command anything, and make anything good or sinful. Thus, God could make the murder of innocent children a good act, and make aiding others a sin. Surely, that cannot be so? Perhaps God would not do that, but there are terrifying implications even if He can.

[Lithosano]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.

Ezekiel 16:49 disagrees.

""'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (NIV)

[Rocopurr]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.

Rather not. I can't and won't stop being gay.

[Liriena]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.

This is actually false.

[Jormengand]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality

No.

[Magna Libero]

The Jewish Sabbath was Saturday (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) not Sunday.
And this was commanded in the societal law of the Jewish state. It is no longer operable.
The moral law is eternal, and not one word of it shall ever pass away.

The Jewish Sabbath is no longer Saturday?

Friday? That's utterly appalling. I don't know what to think. The Friday people (I think they are called that): "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people".

[Menassa]

The Jewish Sabbath is no longer Saturday?

Friday? That's utterly appalling. I don't know what to think. The Friday people (I think they are called that): "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people".

It's Saturday, Friday night, and Saturday.

[Magna Libero]

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

Ah, but why did God command this? Also, since God is omnipotent, that means that he can command anything, and make anything good or sinful. Thus, God could make the murder of innocent children a good act, and make aiding others a sin. Surely, that cannot be so? Perhaps God would not do that, but there are terrifying implications even if He can.

I think the Book of Job answers your questions.

[Resora]

Ah, but why did God command this? Also, since God is omnipotent, that means that he can command anything, and make anything good or sinful. Thus, God could make the murder of innocent children a good act, and make aiding others a sin. Surely, that cannot be so? Perhaps God would not do that, but there are terrifying implications even if He can.

I think the Book of Job answers your questions.

Ah yes, the book where God's apology for killing all of a man's children is to say "don't worry, you can still have more!"

[Jormengand]

Ah, but why did God command this? Also, since God is omnipotent, that means that he can command anything, and make anything good or sinful. Thus, God could make the murder of innocent children a good act, and make aiding others a sin. Surely, that cannot be so? Perhaps God would not do that, but there are terrifying implications even if He can.

I think the Book of Job answers your questions.

Nonetheless, I would like to hear it from this person, not the inglorious clusterfuck known as "The Bible."

[Magna Libero]

I think the Book of Job answers your questions.

Ah yes, the book where God's apology for killing all of a man's children is to say "don't worry, you can still have more!"

It wasn't God, who killed all of Job's children...

[Resora]

Ah yes, the book where God's apology for killing all of a man's children is to say "don't worry, you can still have more!"

It wasn't God, who killed all of Job's children...

Oh bullshit, the entire story of Job is a pissing match between God and Satan, where Satan says "oh hey God, I bet Job only loves you because you gave him lots of shit" and God goes "nuh uh, go ahead and wreck his shit, I'll totally prove you wrong!"

[Haflin]

Sorry if I offended it was not my intention, But I would say that they are tyranny of majority (sorry if I may be using that phrase incorrectly.) I would also like to say that I never stated the majority was full of or composed of bigots. I was merely suggesting they were using the democratic process to suppress a generally unsupported group.

You didn't offend. No one is being suppressed (although in this case the minority is calling for that), they can still have their meeting but the Senate isn't going to give them a platform to espouse their bigotry.

If this is a democracy a fair debate should be in place. Regardless of how you feel they act. When they are proven wrong in debate then its over. Until then they should not be denied a platform to struggle on.

[The Truth and Light]

Ah yes, the book where God's apology for killing all of a man's children is to say "don't worry, you can still have more!"

It wasn't God, who killed all of Job's children...

Yes it is. Satan was a proxy.

[Lithosano]

You didn't offend. No one is being suppressed (although in this case the minority is calling for that), they can still have their meeting but the Senate isn't going to give them a platform to espouse their bigotry.

If this is a democracy a fair debate should be in place. Regardless of how you feel they act. When they are proven wrong in debate then its over. Until then they should not be denied a platform to struggle on.

They have more or less been proven wrong.

The right to free speech is not absolute, they cannot express their views in a place where the owner does not want them. The Supreme Court has recognized that people can be denied a platform. No one has a right to unrestricted access to Senate buildings (except maybe the senators themselves), and the person who was apparently in charge of the building decided not to allow them use of the building. No one was being suppressed.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.

Hopefully my cup of water will turn into wine as well.

[Haflin]

If this is a democracy a fair debate should be in place. Regardless of how you feel they act. When they are proven wrong in debate then its over. Until then they should not be denied a platform to struggle on.

They have more or less been proven wrong.

The right to free speech is not absolute, they cannot express their views in a place where the owner does not want them. The Supreme Court has recognized that people can be denied a platform. No one has a right to unrestricted access to Senate buildings (except maybe the senators themselves), and the person who was apparently in charge of the building decided not to allow them use of the building. No one was being suppressed.

Id disagree, suppression exists by lets say denying a platform in which to speak upon. The person in charge of the building decided to end the activity( The activity I may not support, but I will defend their ability to express it.) is a form of suppression. Even if they can go elsewhere to complain about what ever it is they want. It is still a weakening of their ability to say what they please. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Menassa]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.

Hopefully my cup of water will turn into wine as well.

There is greater Biblical evidence for water turning into wine than for Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed due to homosexuality.

[Wisconsin9]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.

lolwut? I don't know what Bible you're reading, but mine doesn't even mention homosexuality as a reason for that.

[Resora]

They have more or less been proven wrong.

The right to free speech is not absolute, they cannot express their views in a place where the owner does not want them. The Supreme Court has recognized that people can be denied a platform. No one has a right to unrestricted access to Senate buildings (except maybe the senators themselves), and the person who was apparently in charge of the building decided not to allow them use of the building. No one was being suppressed.

Id disagree, suppression exists by lets say denying a platform in which to speak upon. The person in charge of the building decided to end the activity( The activity I may not support, but I will defend their ability to express it.) is a form of suppression. Even if they can go elsewhere to complain about what ever it is they want. It is still a weakening of their ability to say what they please. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I completely agree, but then, that's why societies with bourgeois concepts of property ownership are fundamentally undemocratic and cause communication distortions that give privilege to the interests of those with power. The state is not obligated to provide access to its property, and as the state was acting within its own laws to bar that group from using state property, its actions are no more or less democratic than, say, the lack of obligation of a media company to allow people to use its property to argue positions it disagrees with.

[Haflin]

Id disagree, suppression exists by lets say denying a platform in which to speak upon. The person in charge of the building decided to end the activity( The activity I may not support, but I will defend their ability to express it.) is a form of suppression. Even if they can go elsewhere to complain about what ever it is they want. It is still a weakening of their ability to say what they please. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I completely agree, but then, that's why societies with bourgeois concepts of property ownership are fundamentally undemocratic and cause communication distortions that give privilege to the interests of those with power. The state is not obligated to provide access to its property, and as the state was acting within its own laws to bar that group from using state property, its actions are no more or less democratic than, say, the lack of obligation of a media company to allow people to use its property to argue positions it disagrees with.

I will agree with this.

[Haflin]

So it could be said the senate acted as a company would?

[The Scientific States]

Hopefully their plan falls flat.

[Condunum]

You didn't offend. No one is being suppressed (although in this case the minority is calling for that), they can still have their meeting but the Senate isn't going to give them a platform to espouse their bigotry.

If this is a democracy a fair debate should be in place. Regardless of how you feel they act. When they are proven wrong in debate then its over. Until then they should not be denied a platform to struggle on.

The good thing is, this isn't a democracy. Democracy is bad. It is toxic and dangerous to social progress, or any sort of forward movement. What we are is a constitutional republic, and the Rights of individuals shouldn't be up to debate just because you think it's icky.