“Lowlife, perverted, vile….” these are rather ungodly terms to thrust upon another human. Are you remorseful?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/USvWindsor%20.html

Regardless of your religious beliefs, it is completely discriminatory by law to not recognize these unions when others are recognized. The Supreme Court of the USA recognized so. You can oppose all you want, but eventually as with all basic human rights and equalities – you will be overruled and the law will recognize these unions as it should – IN EQUAL TERMS. It’s not a matter of IF, it’s a matter of WHEN. Eventually enough of the ignorant find enlightenment and things change.

It was nonsense and misinformation on factual levels.

All of your attempted points have been debunked as such multiple times. It’s getting tiring proving you wrong over and over again.

And the rest of this post is just semantics games that I’m not interested in playing.

I’ve answered your questions. You keep moving the goalposts ‘cuz you don’t like the answers.

I know you don’t want marriage equality, but dishonest, specious, silly rationalizations are just not necessary.
Come on.

Add to that, there’s a burden of proof thing.
If you’re going to make a claim, like “Look at the statistical facts on the increased risk of gays.” the obligation to prove it is on you.

If not, we can simply dismiss your claim as false and a lie.

Is that what you want?

For example the people doing this petition have been called “religeous bigots” and homophobes and the like just because they have a different opinion on this topic. In fact they have had more hateful things said towards them then this group has said about same-sex. But I guess that is okay.

Most times it is not even religious people that use the bible or any other religious books to justify a point. Non religious people and even atheist have used the quotes and passages in the bible to get across their points. Most times the hateful remarks are not coming from “religious bigots.”

You’re saying that aligned me with bible thumpers and it has nothing to do with the bible. I don’t user a “book of fiction” as you have implied.

“Another bible thumper who uses a book of fiction to discriminate.”

I said “The very fact you calling someone a bigot based on their (difference of) opinion, again OPINION, makes you in fact the bigot.

You can’t categorize religious people making a comment “religious bigots.” What you can do is individually call out a person who is being a bigot. I do not know how you can identify on here who is religious by comments. Just because a person uses the Bible or Quran, as if muslims are not in this, doesn’t make that person religious. So your broad catergorization of “religious bigot” is very unfair.

A lot of good things can cause harm. Sex can cause harm. Same-sex can cause harm to the individuals. Good things can cause harm. Just eating food can cause harm…playing sports (boxing) two humans going against each other physically CAN cause harm.

Lying CAN cause harm but you said – “shades of grey.”

You did not respond to my main question. Is it Right or Wrong? All of the examples I mentioned can CAUSE harm. All of them but you said its “shades of grey.” It’s either right or wrong.

You said you base morality on “”does it harm someone.”

Adultery is part of the conversion – Doesn’t matter if it is against the law or not. Morality deals with RIGHT OR WRONG….

Based on what you said “does it harm someone.” and my example – Is it RIGHT or WRONG. Simple question. No grey blurred lines there Mike. Is it RIGHT or WRONG if it doesn’t harm anyone?

Paedophilia – I didn’t need your long answer on this. I want to know based on your standard or guidepost “does it harm someone” given the example I used is it RIGHT or WRONG.

Lying – There is no shade of grey here….Is it RIGHT or WRONG to lie about anything if it doesn’t harm anybody. Again based on “does it harm someone.”

My apologies when I mentioned “You want prayer and religious sacraments out of society.” The “YOU” wasn’t directed as you individually, so I see how that could have come across.” The you was meant has a broader group of people that do not believe in a deity or those or support same-sex and vehemently attack religion”

You said “You posting this shows that you do, in fact, have no interest in what I’m actually saying and are just making up a whole new reality to fit your narrative. Sorry, but that is unfair. ” That is not true. Simply because the You was taken the wrong way. Again, the you wasn’t directed at you as explained above. You know I have never ‘making things up” to fit “my” narrative in ALL of our conversations. Come on Mike, be fair here.

Lastly, I am not complaining about someone losing their job. I am asking based on “does it harm someone” is it RIGHT or WRONG for someone to lose their job simply because they don’t support a lifestyle that goes against their morals. For being asked” Do you support the homosexual lifestyle” the person replied No, I do not. I have nothing against them, personally, I do not support the lifestyle” You’re saying this is a hate speech???. Was it RIGHT or Wrong to fire him based on “does it harm someone.” There was no hate in that comment what so ever.

…. try doing so with some honesty and integrity? I have been doing that all this time. It is you my friend that hasn’t.

You know full well the examples I gave was asking you directly is it RIGHT or WRONG based on your statement: “Easy. One of the many things I base my morality on is “does it harm someone?”

You quickly dismissed the Adultery example – I didn’t ask if it was okay legally. I am asking Right or Wrong. Come on Mike you knew this. You be fair.

Go through my comments, all of them if you have time, on this post on others. I have been very consistent and fair. Never used a bible verse, you don’t even know my religion or even if I am religious, but it seems like you are not being fair simply because I disagree with you.

Seriously… why can’t you be honest with this? Why are you rewriting the things that I said?

My response to “we should respect each other’s right to express opposing views without being nasty” was “Nobody is saying you don’t have a right to express your views. It’s not about the view, it’s about the denial of rights. “, but you ignored that to push this narrative. And are continuing to do so.

Please try honesty. I’m begging.

You read a post like “hey guys, we should respect each other’s right to express opposing views without being nasty” and respond with “yeah, but my view is better though.”

You really don’t see that doesn’t follow?

There’s a lot of stuff in here that is based on flawed logic.

Adultery – not against the law, so not part of the conversation.

Paedophilia – not part of this conversation, but I’ll address your point. The age of consent was chosen as a general time that folks thought would be around where kids were finally grown up enough, physically and emotionally, to make that judgement. It’s not perfect. The example you cited is absolutely unfair, but is in the vast minority of cased of paedophilia. One example does not a rule make.

Marijuana – You’re absolutely right. This is why I’ve spoken out against that unjust law, too. I’m against the criminalization of marijuana. It should be changed, just like THIS unjust law should be changed.

Lying – as with many things, it’s a “shades of grey” matter. Sometimes…

Look. You’re focused on “what if it doesn’t harm someone?”… that’s not the point. It’s “does it have the potential to do so?” that I base it on. Do you get it? I don’t look for excuses or ways to get out of doing it, I look at things, in this one example of things I base my moral code on, as “Can this hurt someone?”, not “If no one finds out, can I get away with it?” Get it?
I know you have a vested interest in not understanding what I’m saying and in trying to punch holes in things, but at least TRY to see what I’m saying?

“Look at the statistical facts on the increased risk of gays.”
Risk of what? You’re going to have to back that up or at least explain more.
What reputable scientific facts? Please back up that claim with elucidation and evidence.

Your next one is a doozy. How is showing two people in love, or teaching that it’s ok (something which, by the way, actually saves lives and, thus, causes LESS harm. Do some research on suicide rates among LGBT young people.) harming anyone? No one is stopping you from having your morals or your spirituality. No one is harming your faith by showing gay folks on tv.
And “You want prayer and religious sacraments out of society…” is completely false. That is an outright lie that you have made up. Not once have I ever said that or anything like that. I have, in fact, said exactly the opposite. You posting this shows that you do, in fact, have no interest in what I’m actually saying and are just making up a whole new reality to fit your narrative. Sorry, but that is unfair.
and if you’re going to say “It is emotionally and morally harming to society as a whole that reject it.”, you have to explain how. You haven’t. Just saying it doesn’t make it true.

As for your example of people losing their jobs? Hate speech is not covered by free speech. Here’s the thing. Folks are still allowed to say those things. They just have to live with the repercussions. Free speech doesn’t mean that other people aren’t allowed to disagree with you.
What kills me is that you’re complaining about someone being “harmed” for speaking out against someone, yet support legislation that is actively harming people by refusing them rights. It’s insane.

I’ve addressed all your points, useless as that is, as you won’t actually read what I said, you’ll just cherry pick and try to find something to denounce.

If you’re going to continue this conversation, may I ask… no, beg… you to try doing so with some honesty and integrity?

Thanks.

Of course I think my view is better. That’s why I made it my view!
Don’t you think yours is better than mine?

You seem so desperate to denounce me with ad hominems, they’ve stopped making sense.
How about addressing the points I make, rather than this feeble false narrative of “you don’t respect my viewpoint” you’re trying to push? It’s getting boring and nobody is buying it.

You still don’t see it.

Some churches won’t do a wedding for a divorced couple. But that couple can still legally marry. The church can’t stop them being married. This is the same thing.