An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Fin12]

To Fin12


I can see you are deluding yourself from the evidence. The straight normal princes and the girls are not indulging in sex straight away as the gay scene is showing it does. … something the pro-gay lobbies always deny.

The evidence is convincing fo anyone who isn’t totally blinkered.

You haven't been to a club recently have you?

It's not uncommon for people to make out without knowing eachothers name.

Dance near them, escalate touching, then kiss.

I have no problem indulging in sex on the first date, neither do the vast majority of my friends. My lifestyle and 70% of young non abstinent hetero males disagree with you.

Atrraction makes you want to sleep with someone, emotional connection is something else. It is separate from attraction.

You are dodging the evidence, your notion of "love" seems skewed, your inability to comprehend that often hetero interactions are about sex, your refusal to admit that the clubs and bars are entirely different when it comes to liticiousness.


Once you adress my points and prove me wrong, then I'll take your ad hominem seriously.

 

[Psudopod]

Now, you can argue that we shouldn't care any longer (and I would argue we should care). You can argue that homsexual couples can have babies (yes, but because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should).

Well why not? If they can do something as well as heterosexual couples (and all the evidence points that way), then for what reason should you not?

You can argue that homosexual parents, or single parents, do just as good raising children as man/woman couples do--and there you have to argue with study after study showing this to be wrong. That while such situations exist, they are not ideal for the children.

What studies have shown that homosexual parents specifically are worse at raising children? Remember a stable homosexual relationship is very different to a single parent family.

But, in the end, to make the case that this is about equality, and not the best interests of the society, you have to prove the underlying assumptions that men and women, together, tend to have babies, and that a father/mother couple is better at raising children than any other situation, are both completely wrong.

Men and women together tend to have babies, but this trend is growing less and less in the developed world. And there is no requirement to have children as part of marriage. Otherwise we’d prevent infertile couples and post menopausal couples from marrying. As for the second point, what does it matter? Do you think there’s going to be some movement to distribute babies across all married couples, so that some will end up with gay parents? Of course not. So if the mother /father couple is the best thing for the child, it will stay with them. If it is not, and ends up for adoption, it may be adopted by gay parents who can give it a loving home and that would obviously be better for the child.

So, am I "anti-gay?" No, not particularly. I think it's sad we live our lives so much around sex that we want sex to define marriage, but that's a societal problem, not a "gay" problem. We sell most of the products in our society based on sex, make "being sexy" virtually synonymous with "being healthy," and all love stories end with "sex ever after." Maybe if we just got out of the hyper sexual mode, we would see that marriage isn't about giving a license to have sex, and hence, gay marriage has nothing to do with "equality."

Why are you equating gay with sex? Gay relationships aren’t any more about sex than straight ones. Sure it’s a component, but it’s not everything, any more than it is with straight couples.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Fin12,

Once you adress my points and prove me wrong, then I'll take your ad hominem seriously.

I can't make a blind man see, in the same way if you dont accept my argument, you wont accept it, that doesn tmake it wrong just because you dont accept it, you could still be wrong.
But I will gladly address your comments.

You haven't been to a club recently have you?

That is irrlevant to what the gya hotel advertises as.

It's not uncommon for people to make out without knowing eachothers name.

No but that doesnt make it right.

I have no problem indulging in sex on the first date, neither do the vast majority of my friends. My lifestyle and 70% of young non abstinent hetero males disagree with you.

So why are there laws against adultery, incest and other sexual acts?

You are dodging the evidence, the girls in the program did not kiss, cuddle and want sex with the straight men, the gays did. Perhaps you are not as represntative of people as you think.

perhaps, like most gays, you are also getting confused about what is love and what is sex.

 

[Fin12]

To Fin12,

I can't make a blind man see, in the same way if you dont accept my argument, you wont accept it, that doesn tmake it wrong just because you dont accept it, you could still be wrong.
But I will gladly address your comments.

That is irrlevant to what the gya hotel advertises as.

No but that doesnt make it right.

So why are there laws against adultery, incest and other sexual acts?

You are dodging the evidence, the girls in the program did not kiss, cuddle and want sex with the straight men, the gays did. Perhaps you are not as represntative of people as you think.

perhaps, like most gays, you are also getting confused about what is love and what is sex.

1. That's illogical, either your argument makes sense or it doesn't, it's a common theist cop out.... "If they don't have the same prejudices and stance as we do they will not agree with us"

Well of course not, that's precisely why you debate, you prove me wrong in a way that I can not argue against.

That's just taking what you previously said is an objective truth and then masquerading it under a subjective opinion when it comes under fire, so when you get cornered or ask to conclusively prove something, you just cry "You don't believe what I believe so you won't believe me!!!!"

It makes me a sad panda.


2. Yes it is irrelevant but it is disproving your notion that homosexuals are sex obsessed and hetero's are "just looking for love"

3. I had no idea their was a law against adultery, I thought it would be a civil dispute rather than criminal :O

I'm not saying it's right, personally I don't have too many problems with it, but it's another example of a common loose sexual practise done y HETERO's

4. I'm not dodging it at all, however to the extreme I may be my friends are not, and neither are those who I have observed frequenting clubs.

If those men went to a rave party, pretty much the same as the gay guy did, those men would have kissing cuddling and offers of sex, none of which would be the girls in search for a boyfriend.

Here's a tip no on goes to rave's to meet a partner, the go their to get smashed and hook up with someone.

5. Why would it be that I'm getting love and sex mixed up??? Or is that just the usual jab at people who disagree with you... "your so confused/angry/guilty/upset".

Unless you can justify ad hominem, don't bother using it.

 

[SallyNow]

I did a search of "Scottish Gay Hotels" and found a site called "Gay Journey: Gay and Lesbian Travel Centre". Turns out there are hotels in Scottland that are owned by homosexuals and that are gay and lesbian friendly, but I couldn't find one that refused service to people who do not identify as homosexual.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To SallyNow,
The gay men only hotel isnt in Scotland, I am sorry I really dont feel I can post the link on a Christian forum

 

[David Brider]

To SallyNow,
The gay men only hotel isnt in Scotland, I am sorry I really dont feel I can post the link on a Christian forum

Perhaps you could PM it to us, so we could make up our own minds?

David.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well this is very interesting and speaks volumes.
All I am doing is asking for equality, if there is a gay men only hotel then there should be a hotel that refuses gay couples. I am quite happy with that. Pro-gay posters have not really made any criticism of a gay men only hotel but demand that GAY couples have double rooms elsewhere because gay people must not be discriminated against.
and people are beggining to twig what is going on hence Prop 8

Perhaps because there is NO SUCH THING as a "gay only" hotel. I can believe a resort that caters to the gay trade, guaranteeing a gay-friendly atmosphere -- just as there are "Christian" resorts that guarantee an enjoyable vacation without what they would describe as the allure of sinful temptations. As others have pointed out, that's marketing to a target audience, not discrimination in who they will rent to. Consider English newspapers (ones from London, not ones in our native language) -- the Sun is for the everyday worker and his wife, who enjoy reading about a little scandalous goings-on and a bit of scantily clas female pulchritude; the Telegraph is for the person who wants analytical coverage of the implications of what happened in Himachal Pradesh, with a slight LibDem slant to the news. But if your tradesman wants a Telegraph, they'll gladly sell him one, and if an Oxbridge don wants a Sun, they'll gladly sell to him. (Wish I had a good American example, but that was a easy-to-mind instance of same product [newspaper] with distinct targeted marketing strategies.)

The difference between targeted marketing and discrimination is this: The one is focusing on a good potential market for your product, while not being unwilling to provide it to anyone else. The other is selling the same product to one and refusing it to another based on prejudicial classifications. If the 'gay resort' refused to rent to you because you're straight or because you're a Christian, you'd have grounds to sue or protest, and I think most of us would join in. On the other hand, if they refused to rent to you specifically (and consider this as a hypothetical, not an insult) because they believed you to be likely to upbraid their other clientele for their 'sinful lifestyle', they would be within their legal bounds as having rejected someone from their clientele on the grounds of behavior. (Of course, I'm not saying that you, BMS, would do such a thing -- I'm using a hypothetical 'you' as a theoretical individual who might, to show the distinction.)

And IMO this is a red herring anyway. Maren adequately proved that Creed Is Christ's premise in the OP was completely invalid -- that the issue was demanding financial accountability from corrupt men hiding behind their clerical status, and had nothing to do with the supposed 'gay agenda'.

 

[b&wpac4]

Fox News vs. MSNBC would be a close American comparison. Democrats are not blocked from watching Fox News, and Republicans are not blocked from MSNBC. It's not perfect, but close.

 

[sidhe]

Fox News vs. MSNBC would be a close American comparison. Democrats are not blocked from watching Fox News, and Republicans are not blocked from MSNBC. It's not perfect, but close.

New York Post and New York Times are what sprung to my mind.

 

[b&wpac4]

New York Post and New York Times are what sprung to my mind.

Works for me.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Firstly let me just say that on reflection the issue over the retreat is valid. My apologies to all who made that point. There is a difference. Though I am not sure the UK law allows for a straight only retreat.

To Polycarp1,

Perhaps because there is NO SUCH THING as a "gay only" hotel. I can believe a resort that caters to the gay trade, guaranteeing a gay-friendly atmosphere -- just as there are "Christian" resorts that guarantee an enjoyable vacation without what they would describe as the allure of sinful temptations.

Well the opposite of gay is actually straight, not Christian. What we are seeing is gay is the opposite of Christian as well.

If the 'gay resort' refused to rent to you because you're straight or because you're a Christian, you'd have grounds to sue or protest, and I think most of us would join in. On the other hand, if they refused to rent to you specifically (and consider this as a hypothetical, not an insult) because they believed you to be likely to upbraid their other clientele for their 'sinful lifestyle', they would be within their legal bounds as having rejected someone from their clientele on the grounds of behavior. (Of course, I'm not saying that you, BMS, would do such a thing -- I'm using a hypothetical 'you' as a theoretical individual who might, to show the distinction.)

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

The actual situation is that the hotel hasn’t discriminated against the homosexual at all, but has discriminated against the homosexual couple. This is because the owner was a Christian and ‘homosexual couple’ is offensive to God.

And IMO this is a red herring anyway. Maren adequately proved that Creed Is Christ's premise in the OP was completely invalid -- that the issue was demanding financial accountability from corrupt men hiding behind their clerical status, and had nothing to do with the supposed 'gay agenda'.

On the contrary I think all the evidence shows its obvious CreedIsChrist made a good observation.

 

[b&wpac4]

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

Again, this is not exactly the same. The exact same analogy would be the gay bookstore not selling a book they carry to a heterosexual, but instead insist they purchase a book they did not want.

Say they wanted: The Red Bunny

But the store says they must buy: The Green Dove

The store will allow homosexuals to buy: The Red Bunny

That is the problem.

 

[Skaloop]

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

OK, here's a somewhat different tact.

Say there's a bookstore that caters to gay people. Anyone can go into that store and buy any book they want that is available. Gay or straight, man or woman, anyone can get any available book.

In the Scottish hotel, things were different. Anyone could NOT go in and get any room they wanted that is available. Straight people could get the room they wanted if available, but gay people couldn't. That's the discrimination. Saying "You can't have this available room that you want because you are gay" is discrimination.

Now please, even if you aren't going to change your mind, will you please at least acknowledge the difference between the two situations?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

Again, this is not exactly the same. The exact same analogy would be the gay bookstore not selling a book they carry to a heterosexual, but instead insist they purchase a book they did not want.

On the contrary the heterosexual isn’t a couple then gay couple are. Each of the gays could have had any room they wanted, it was a double room for them together they weren’t offered.

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

On the contrary the heterosexual isn’t a couple then gay couple are. Each of the gays could have had any room they wanted, it was a double room for them together they weren’t offered.

You are comparing a SINGLE HETEROSEXUAL man with TWO HOMOSEXUAL MEN. This is not a fair comparison.

To put it in your fictional book store, this means that the bookstore would not sell to a heterosexual couple a book it would sell to a single gay man. See the difference?

 

[Skaloop]

The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted

They would if it was available. Hence, no discrimination.

and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted.

Even though it was available. Hence, discrimination.

Simple as that.

It is simple. Just not the way you think.

 

[Belk]

Not quite, in the examples given the gay bookshop is unlikely to have the book a straight would want and doesn’t have to provide it, that doesn’t stop a straight buying a book from a gay bookshop. Neither however did the hotel refuse the gays a room. The fact is the straight wouldn’t be able to get the book they wanted and the gay wouldn’t be able to get the room they wanted. Simple as that.

The issue is that the bookstore does not have the book in question so they can not offer it. The hotel did have the room that to homosexual couple was looking for and refused to allow them to use it.

The actual situation is that the hotel hasn’t discriminated against the homosexual at all, but has discriminated against the homosexual couple. This is because the owner was a Christian and ‘homosexual couple’ is offensive to God.

Actually I think it would be closer to say that since they did not acknowledge the homosexuals couple hood, they treated them as they would any other non couple. Other then that you have a valid point.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Belk,
You are missing the point in all respects. The homosexual can have any of the rooms at the hotel that are available, the homosexual 'couple' cant. The hotel is not discriminating against the homosexual, but the homosexual couple just as it might discriminate against the unmarrired man and woman.
Nonetheless a room is a room, there isnt much variatiom, a book is a diffferent matter.

 

[Belk]

To Belk,
You are missing the point in all respects. The homosexual can have any of the rooms at the hotel that are available, the homosexual 'couple' cant. The hotel is not discriminating against the homosexual, but the homosexual couple just as it might discriminate against the unmarrired man and woman.
Nonetheless a room is a room, there isnt much variatiom, a book is a diffferent matter.

I'm sorry I must not have made myself clear. I agree that they are not discriminating against the homosexual personally but against them as a couple. I was trying to point out that they treated them the same as they would any non couple who came to the hotel.

What I was disagreeing with was your conclusion that the Bookshop and Hotel situations where analogous. I do not think they are because the bookstore is unable to provide the service while the hotel was able to.