religous based law

[Nilloc James]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml ... d=57586886

Is this a logical extension of faith based law making?

[99percentatheism]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml ... d=57586886

Is this a logical extension of faith based law making?

Are you saying that because a person has a religious view of life that they are disqualified from democracy?

That appears to be your position.

The point is the state enshrining certain religions' laws leads to laws like this. People are allowed to believe what they want, they just can't force it on others. I think wearing baseball caps backwards is an abomination, but I don't impose this law on others threatening them with jail. Homosexuality is a lot like baseball caps: you can think whatever you want, but since it doesn't harm you, you can't criminalize it.

May I remind everyone this is not an issue of "gays can't get married", this is a situation where people can go to jail for love.

Do you think people should go to jail for being gay?

First, Nigeria is not Canada. You should tolerate their diversity. Aren't there many large cities in Canada, Europe and the US that has large affirming gay communities that would just love a new crop of gays and lesbians moving in from faroff lands? Nigerian LGBT's would find a perfect fit (no pun intended) in the gay world established in the West wouldn't they?

Second and most important:

Are you saying that because a person has a religious view of life that they are disqualified from democracy?

That appears to be your position.

[McCulloch]

First, Nigeria is not Canada.

Certainly not.

You should tolerate their diversity.

That's not the point. They should tolerate their own diversity. The world took a stand against apartheid in South Africa. Should we not take a similar stand against the prosecution of love in Nigeria?

Aren't there many large cities in Canada, Europe and the US that has large affirming gay communities that would just love a new crop of gays and lesbians moving in from faroff lands? Nigerian LGBT's would find a perfect fit (no pun intended) in the gay world established in the West wouldn't they?

Yes, the western nations should provide for the refugees from countries where human rights are violated. However, it would be better if all of the nations of the world would become more tolerant.

Are you saying that because a person has a religious view of life that they are disqualified from democracy?

That appears to be your position.

Not at all. Our view is that your private religious convictions, no matter how deeply felt or believed, should not be the law of the land. Our governments should neither establish, promote, prohibit or restrict religion.

[czyz]

99% wrote...

Please prove the phobia in opposition to homosexuality or please retract the accusation.

By the way, Crete was famous for pederasty. That is man-boy sexual behavior. So, the "cretin" charge, laid down on a Christian is spurious to the extreme. Except, eh-hem, of course, those that have done their thing with boys.

If religion is a poison, the lack thereof of God-based religion is socially parasitic and harmful. I believe history could support that with just one reading of the USSR's history.

Your kidding, right? From the Hadith it states

"if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,� "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,� and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

I wasn't discussing Crete so I'm not sure why you are obviscating the argument about Nigerian Islamic fundamentalists banning homosexuality.

I ask that you sir consider retracting your point about lack of god based religion being socially parasitic. Stalin was trained in seminary and replicated religious totalitarianism by killing the dissenters, miraculous claims of the state (Lysenko's biology), and claiming holy the allegiance to the mother land. National Socialism (Nazi party) was founded on some religious principles. The opening pages of Hitler's Mein Kampf said that killing the Jews is doing God's will, all army inductees took an oath "before almighty God", and on the belt buckles of soldiers were inscribed the words, "Got mit uns" or God is with us. The Japanese emperor Hirohito was deemed a god, the Pol Pot regime was influenced by and had many members of radical Buddhist sects as it supporters and guides, and the list continues.

God based religions allow followers to utter the most vile things and conduct the most vile actions in God's name such the non-condemnation of slavery in the bible or koran, condemning to death actions such as adultery or innocuous behaviors such as working on the Sabbath, promoting human sacrifice as vicarious redemption for sins when god being god could simply forgive sins, making fatuous claims about the universe's origin, flying airplanes into buildings in honor of God, or hacking people to death with machetes because they are apostates. Tell me how these atrocious statements and behaviors make the world a better place?

If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic I'm here for you, but for your sake, you must do better than your previous utterances.

[Nilloc James]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml ... d=57586886

Is this a logical extension of faith based law making?

Are you saying that because a person has a religious view of life that they are disqualified from democracy?

That appears to be your position.

The point is the state enshrining certain religions' laws leads to laws like this. People are allowed to believe what they want, they just can't force it on others. I think wearing baseball caps backwards is an abomination, but I don't impose this law on others threatening them with jail. Homosexuality is a lot like baseball caps: you can think whatever you want, but since it doesn't harm you, you can't criminalize it.

May I remind everyone this is not an issue of "gays can't get married", this is a situation where people can go to jail for love.

Do you think people should go to jail for being gay?

First, Nigeria is not Canada. You should tolerate their diversity. Aren't there many large cities in Canada, Europe and the US that has large affirming gay communities that would just love a new crop of gays and lesbians moving in from faroff lands? Nigerian LGBT's would find a perfect fit (no pun intended) in the gay world established in the West wouldn't they?

Second and most important:

Are you saying that because a person has a religious view of life that they are disqualified from democracy?

That appears to be your position.

1st: your solution is that these people should be forced to leave their country and homes or be persectued. That is not a solution.

2nd: that is not my position, stop presenting that strawman. My point is, and always has been, that the state does not exist to make one religion law. It should enable coexistence amongst groups that don't agree. So you can not allow gay marriages in your church, and gay people shouldn't be prosecuted in the name of religion. That is the coexistence I speak of. Religious groups can think what they want: they just can't force it on others.

[East of Eden]

All laws are an imposition of someone's morality, and Christians have the same right to be involved in public policy issues as anyone. Do the atheists here think ML King was wrong for forcing his religious ideas on society?

I don't think gays should be jailed, nor do I think Christian adoption agencies should be forced out of that field because they believe children should have a mother and father.

[McCulloch]

All laws are an imposition of someone's morality, and Christians have the same right to be involved in public policy issues as anyone.

Yes, Christians should not be excluded from the debate on public policy issues. However they should be prohibited from making elements of their religious beliefs part of or even the basis for our common set of laws.

Do the atheists here think ML King was wrong for forcing his religious ideas on society?

Yes, I do think that is would have been wrong if Martin Luther King had forced his religious ideas on society. However, that is not what he did. He demanded that society live up to the ideal of fairness, toleration and equality before the law. He did find support for this demand in his religion, but his demands were not primarily religious.

I don't think gays should be jailed,

Why not? Does not your God declare them to be abominations, worthy of death by stoning?

nor do I think Christian adoption agencies should be forced out of that field because they believe children should have a mother and father.

Should a hypothetical religion based but racist adoption agency receive public support if they believe that inter-racial couples are not proper candidates for parenthood? I don't. Because I do not believe that adoption agencies should be allowed to violate our anti-discrimination laws.

[East of Eden]

All laws are an imposition of someone's morality, and Christians have the same right to be involved in public policy issues as anyone.

Yes, Christians should not be excluded from the debate on public policy issues. However they should be prohibited from making elements of their religious beliefs part of or even the basis for our common set of laws.

Nonsense, what religion is thereby established. Christianity is already the basis for Western human rights, http://www.veritas.org/Talks.aspx#!/v/43 Karl Marx rejected the idea of basic human rights as the product of Christianity. That didn't turn out well.

Yes, I do think that is would have been wrong if Martin Luther King had forced his religious ideas on society. However, that is not what he did. He demanded that society live up to the ideal of fairness, toleration and equality before the law.

But where do you get those ideas outside of Western civilization, and the idea we are made in God's image? Otherwise, why not might makes right?

He did find support for this demand in his religion, but his demands were not primarily religious.

You're trying to have it both ways.

Why not? Does not your God declare them to be abominations, worthy of death by stoning?

If we were members of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. And God rightly declared their sinful acts an abomination, not the people themselves.

Should a hypothetical religion based but racist adoption agency receive public support if they believe that inter-racial couples are not proper candidates for parenthood?

It is ridiculous (not to mention insulting to blacks) to compare race which is immutable with same-sex feelings.

I don't. Because I do not believe that adoption agencies should be allowed to violate our anti-discrimination laws.

You are as intolerant as the Ugandans. The relatively small number of gays who want to adopt can easily be accomodated elsewhere without violating the 1A rights of Christians. Keep it up, the Catholic Church which runs one sixth of US healthcare has already said they will shut it down before they submit to this sort of nonsense. Logically, you would have to take away the tax exempt status of churches who don't accept homosexual conduct, or any other action that offends Chairman Obama.

[keithprosser3]

I hate the way that something like gay couples adopting kids becomes polticised.

Whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt requires a scientific study to see if there are any problems.

For all I know gay parents might be better parents than straights... but allowing gay adoption on political grounds is no better than disallowing it on religious grounds. Of course it is possible to guess what such a study would show. But that is the point - if we do a study we wouldn't have to guess - we'd know. I know what I'd like the study to show, but I can't guarantee it would.

[East of Eden]

I hate the way that something like gay couples adopting kids becomes polticised.

Whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt requires a scientific study to see if there are any problems.

For all I know gay parents might be better parents than straights... but allowing gay adoption on political grounds is no better than disallowing it on religious grounds. Of course it is possible to guess what such a study would show. But that is the point - if we do a study we wouldn't have to guess - we'd know. I know what I'd like the study to show, but I can't guarantee it would.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

[Goat]

I hate the way that something like gay couples adopting kids becomes polticised.

Whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt requires a scientific study to see if there are any problems.

For all I know gay parents might be better parents than straights... but allowing gay adoption on political grounds is no better than disallowing it on religious grounds. Of course it is possible to guess what such a study would show. But that is the point - if we do a study we wouldn't have to guess - we'd know. I know what I'd like the study to show, but I can't guarantee it would.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

Wow, an anti-gay group uses a debunked study.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/201 ... ing-study/