An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Shane Roach]

Yes, it messes up the church. Yes, it was purposed by homosexuals. How does this actually make it an attack by homosexuals (as a general group) on the church? Yes, this can be seen as two homosexuals attacking a church, but how do you conclude this means the majority, homosexuals (as a general group) will do this?

For one thing, instead of unanimously expressing outrage at the very idea, several well known gay activist posters here tried to obfuscate what the bill actually did, claiming it had no real effect on church hierarchy or church policy at all when it actually dictates church hierarchy as far as monetary expenditures go.

Secondly, it is not as if these were two random gay people. They were elected, and so represent by definition more than just themselves.

Thirdly, they proposed this in conjunction with another bill that introduces homosexually correct propaganda into schools.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Everyone doesn't enjoy equal rights. Adulterers, fornicators, polygamists, the incestuous, molesters, just to name a few, are discriminated against. They don't enjoy equal rights. What makes homosexual activity so special? What exactly is contributed to society at large by such sexual activity? NOTHING.

Adulterers break a legal agreement (or at least I think that marriage is normally considered a legal agreement). Fornicators, depending, do enjoy legal rights. They can fornicate, and then get married. Polygamist are mostly kept out by irrational prejudice (or is that redundant), by the fact there are that many who are open about it, and by the fact it is extremely complicated to revamp the legal system to accommodate them. This does not mean they shouldn't have their rights, just that they aren't given. Incestuous are a result of the first two issues that the polygamist have combined with a major misunderstanding of genetics by the population with another little dab of irrationality. Finally, molesters do not get equal rights because they are harming another. We may have slight disagreements on what constitutes molestation, but molestation is harmful to another, and so they do not get 'equal rights', even though the Bible does specify that some molesters should (read Duet. if you want to see for yourself).

And do you know something special, current heterosexual activity does not contribute to society on average. There is a very general trend of lower IQ equal more offspring. So actually, it goes likes this.

High IQ heterosexual sex with chance of reproduction helps society.
Any IQ homosexual sex/ any heterosexual sex without chance of reproduction does nothing good or bad for society.
Low IQ heterosexual sex with chance of reproduction tends to reproduce people with lower IQ's on average, which is harmful to society COMPARED TO the other options.

Of course, IQ is not the best scale to use, as there are benefits to society to be offered from certain individuals which does not show up on an IQ test, which is why we should looking into MI test, but even then, the general trend still holds. The smarter you are, the more likely you will control your reproduction, and since 'smartness' is in a large part genetic, it results in more of the population being made up of those not as smart. Of course, one needs to handle this issue without resulting in elitism, but how to handle this is completely off topic to this thread.

 

[Shane Roach]

Equal rights doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want.

Including redefining several millenia of family law.

 

[Shane Roach]

Polygamist are mostly kept out by irrational prejudice (or is that redundant), by the fact there are that many who are open about it, and by the fact it is extremely complicated to revamp the legal system to accommodate them.

Incestuous are a result of the first two issues that the polygamist have combined with a major misunderstanding of genetics by the population with another little dab of irrationality.

Aaaaand that's what a lot of Christians have been pointing out all along. There's your slippery slope, the full agenda, supported openly by a gay activist.

 

[Cabal]

The circumstances of the bills being introduced was what he spoke of. He never said what you are accusing.

The OP and the link are more full of "hmm, they're gay. gay agenda!" than actual points. We're just working with what we're given, which sadly isn't much.

 

[lawtonfogle]

For one thing, instead of unanimously expressing outrage at the very idea, several well known gay activist posters here tried to obfuscate what the bill actually did, claiming it had no real effect on church hierarchy or church policy at all when it actually dictates church hierarchy as far as monetary expenditures go.

Secondly, it is not as if these were two random gay people. They were elected, and so represent by definition more than just themselves.

Thirdly, they proposed this in conjunction with another bill that introduces homosexually correct propaganda into schools.

As to the third, this is something which was not included information, and still falls to the other problems.

As to the second, I take that as a grain of salt, because most people probably voted for who ever had the least amount of mud slung at them. Yes, those voted in should represent the majority of the population, but with the dichotomy we have been given, it is not a choice of who you want anywhere near as often as it is a choice against who you do not want the most (or least, anyone got an English teacher on hand to figure out which way of saying it is the best?).

As to the first, I am not surprised that there would be others who try to support them, but does this group constitute the majority of homosexuals, and does this actually mean it is organized? Just one person with an agenda does X and then another person with a similar agenda uses X happening to their advantage, or tries to defend X, does not mean it is organized.

Finally, is this attack justified or not. The attack on 'religious freedom' of many groups are often times justified by the fact that laws can very much restrict religious freedom, their intent just cannot be to do such. A law against killings limits the extremist freedom on their interpretation of religion, but it's intent is not to limit someones religious freedom. In this case, I am not familiar with the surrounding happenings to know if the attack was justified or not, but I will assume it isn't based on the response of most here.

 

[gwenmead]

It is beyond me why gay marriage opponents seem to conflate a legal contract with a religious ceremony, and seek to deny same-sex couples the one based on the convictions of the other.

But then, I'm not terribly awake yet either. So perhaps it's my powers of perception that are lacking.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Aaaaand that's what a lot of Christians have been pointing out all along. There's your slippery slope, the full agenda, supported openly by a gay activist.

Actually, for saying that, I am normally attacked by both heterosexual and homosexual alike. And this is not a slippery slope caused by homosexuality.

And it seems you are calling me a gay activist. You should realize that I am not, I only discuss the issue and share my views. Now, I may, in the future, become a separation of church and state and a rationalization of the laws activist, but that will make me as much of a gay activist as a heterosexual activist.

 

[Shane Roach]

As to the third, this is something which was not included information, and still falls to the other problems..

It was in the link in the original post.........

This thread has become a feeding frenzy. I'm out. Maybe I check it later.

Now there's just multiple people posting multiple paragraphs having nothing to do with the OP to bury the issue.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If a religious organization in the USA is tax-exempt, it must incorporate as a non-profit under 501(c) standards. Therefore, while the Church is not a corporation, the financial and tax-paying aspects of it are.

In addition, many churches (at least among independents) incorporate under 501(c)3 as a way of protecting themselves against lawsuits, etc.

 

[Shane Roach]

It is beyond me why gay marriage opponents seem to conflate a legal contract with a religious ceremony, and seek to deny same-sex couples the one based on the convictions of the other.

But then, I'm not terribly awake yet either. So perhaps it's my powers of perception that are lacking.

Because marriage, even outside the church, is family law and defined as such for centuries in multiple cultures.

Undermining it undermines social structure.

And this would not be the first time I or anyone else has mentioned this.

... . . ... . . ... . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .

guh, must... pull... awa....y ... from key.. board.

obfuscation.... . . ... .overload...

 

[Cabal]

*snip*

 

[b&wpac4]

It was in the link in the original post.........

This thread has become a feeding frenzy. I'm out. Maybe I check it later.

Now there's just multiple people posting multiple paragraphs having nothing to do with the OP to bury the issue.

So, this link to a Catholic-themed blog must be viewed as non-biased?

 

[lawtonfogle]

It was in the link in the original post.........

This thread has become a feeding frenzy. I'm out. Maybe I check it later.

Now there's just multiple people posting multiple paragraphs having nothing to do with the OP to bury the issue.

I read the link. It expected the reader to know most of the basics, only informing them of the changes. I can only draw so much from seeing the changes.

 

[sidhe]

I have the depressing sensation that me providing a link to the actual text of the bill so it could be discussed accurately is considered to be part of the obfuscation.

 

[LittleNipper]

But they do have equal rights. They have the same rights as you and I. Equal rights doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want. However the issue with gay rights is that it is not equal: anyone can marry the consenting adult of their choice, not matter what apart from gender. People are discriminated against on the basis of thier gender preference. People used to be discriminated against on the basis of their racail prefernce but this has been fixed.

And also no one is talking about sexual activity. That's already legal.

Sexual "preference" has nothing to do with the instiution of marriage. Marriage is the preferable family unit for the procreation and rearing of children. In this world "natural marrige" isn't perfect, but I would have to say that it is far better than what homosexual "couples" would afford society.

It is my contention that proposed "gay" marriage would only further weaken the correct and natural institution of marriage by promoting three somes and either "fatherless" or "motherless marriages" without regard for children whatsoever.

 

[b&wpac4]

Sexual "preference" has nothing to do with the instiution of marriage. Marriage is the preferable family unit for the procreation and rearing of children. In this world it "natural marrige" isn't perfect, but I would have to say that it is far better than what homosexual "couples" would afford society.

It is my contention that proposed "gay" marriage would only further weaken the correct and natural institution wo marriage by promoting three somes and either "fatherless" or "motherless marriages."

Divorce does a better job of that than new marriages.

 

[LittleNipper]

Divorce does a better job of that than new marriages.

Homosexual "marriages" will not make divorce any less prevalent. My guess is that it would most likely increase divorce..

 

[Cabal]

Homosexual "marriages" will not make divorce any less prevalent. I guess is that it would most likely increase divorce..

Sure, if there are more people getting married.

 

[sidhe]

It is my contention that proposed "gay" marriage would only further weaken the correct and natural institution of marriage by promoting three somes and either "fatherless" or "motherless marriages" without regard for children whatsoever.

Wow.

Soooo...no heterosexual couple has ever had a menage a trois? At least not until they heard about gay folks?