An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[CreedIsChrist]

Of course you can. Just watch...

I support homosexual marriages when they occur between mutually consenting adults.

I do not support incestuous relationships because it is my contention that it cannot occur with genuine mutual consent.

As for polygamy? I am of the position that if all parties to a polygamous marriage genuinely give their mutual informed adult consent, they should be allowed to be married. However, I think the liklihood of finding any two women and a man, any two men and a woman, or any other of the various possible permutations where all 3 (or more) give their GENUINE informed mutual consent to be in such a relationship, would be exceptionally rare. That said, if you can find such a group, why shouldn't they be allowed to be married? There isn't even a "Bible sez!" argument to condemn polygamy!

oh really? but what if the 2 cousins are really in love with each other and want to get married? Its happened


What if these 3 women are really in love with their husband and want to get married?? It's happened

What if one couple wants to get married to another couple in a triangle? its happened

I think this is a clear example that the gays want special rights for only themselves, but no one else on what they deem as not moral. <staff edit>

Either marriage shows partiality or it does not. You can't say that marriage shows partiality "except in this case, which holds my own interests" without seeming like an enormous hypocrite.

I myself could just say gay marriage should be illegal because of the "likelihood" that children won't develop correctly because they won't have a mother and father anymore. So if your gonna outlaw polygamy on your "likelihoods" then the same can be done for gay marriage.

 

[Fin12]

I think this is a clear example that the gays want special rights for only themselves, but no one else on what they deem as not moral. They are selfish hypocrites

How Ironic.

 

[LightHorseman]

oh really? but what if the 2 cousins are really in love with each other and want to get married? Its happened

If they are cousins beyong first cousins, in most jurisdictions, this isn't considered incest. any closer than 1st cousins, and my contention stands, that no incestuous relationship can truly occur with genuine consent from both parties.

What if these 3 women are really in love with their husband and want to get married?? It's happened

Like I said, if they are really in love with the one guy, and each other, and all consent, let them have at it. Why the heck not?

What if one couple wants to get married to another couple in a triangle? its happened

Ditto.

I think this is a clear example that the gays want special rights for only themselves, but no one else on what they deem as not moral. <staff edit>

Really? I don't knoe that I've ever heard gay people wanting to deny similar rights to others. can you give an actual example of such a thing happening?

Either marriage shows partiality or it does not. You can't say that marriage shows partiality "except in this case, which holds my own interests" without seeming like an enormous hypocrite.

Um... the only people who appear to be saying that are the Christians saying they have a right to be married, but gays don't. I don't see the gays trying to limit or exclude people from marriage like you are.

I myself could just say gay marriage should be illegal because of the "likelihood" that children won't develop correctly because they won't have a mother and father anymore. So if your gonna outlaw polygamy on your "likelihoods" then the same can be done for gay marriage.

A. Except all evidence available suggests that children do just fine with same sex parents, and, since you are such a champion of consistency and even handedness, if you are going to outlaw gay marriage because children won't have the right number of appropriate sexed parents, I assume you'll be wanting to outlaw single mothers, including widows?
B. I never said polygamy should be outlawed because of liklihoods. I said if you can find 3 people who genuinely give their equal informed consent to being married, let them get married.

 

[Andreusz]

I think this is a clear example that the gays want special rights for only themselves, but no one else on what they deem as not moral. <staff edit>
.

I have no problems with polygamy or polyandry. Incest is a problem, because of the likelihood of bad recessive genes emerging in the children.

 

[LightHorseman]

I have no problems with polygamy or polyandry. Incest is a problem, because of the likelihood of bad recessive genes emerging in the children.

Although it is a clinical fact that an otherwise healthy woman over the age of 40 is more likely to give birth to a child with congenital defects than a first generation sibling pair... so if birth defects were the only reason to condemn incest, then women over 40 should be condemned for having children equally... you know, since we're all about even handedness and non hypocracy in this thread now.

 

[SallyNow]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how B&B's that are openly homosexual-friendly are undermining religious freedom.

 

[b&wpac4]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how B&B's that are openly homosexual-friendly are undermining religious freedom.

Because!

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

I rather prefer to let God decide what He will find offensive.

We already know same sex sexual relations are offensive Jesus NT teaching excludes and condemns same sex sexual relationships (as in Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1 etc)

Like, for example, bearing false witness -- something I'm quite sure He commented on.

What makes you quite sure, from the same Biblical testimony that excludes and condemns same sex sexual relations?

Okay. If you say so. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Indeed, but I can see where the Biblical testimony shows that God finds same sex sexual relationships offensive, you haven&#8217;t shown anything.

This is a rather crucial question, are you assuming others will agree that Jesus taught not to bear false testimony, perhaps they may think Jesus taught to bear false testimony rather than not to. What is your view based on?

 

[brightmorningstar]

In fact topically in the UK in a national newspaper on Sunday we have a report of a Christian couple who own a hotel also in trouble with refusing a gay couple a shared room. As they have pointed out they have always been refusing unmarried couples rooms and no-one has made formal complaints to the authorities. Of course gay same sex couples can not get married in the UK, it&#8217;s a civil partnership, just seems everything is ok until gays don&#8217;t get what they want.

 

[b&wpac4]

In fact topically in the UK in a national newspaper on Sunday we have a report of a Christian couple who own a hotel also in trouble with refusing a gay couple a shared room. As they have pointed out they have always been refusing unmarried couples rooms and no-one has made formal complaints to the authorities. Of course gay same sex couples can not get married in the UK, it’s a civil partnership, just seems everything is ok until gays don’t get what they want.

Please define "In trouble".

 

[brightmorningstar]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163810/Gay-couple-sue-Christians-barring-hotel-bed.html

 

[LightHorseman]

We already know same sex sexual relations are offensive Jesus NT teaching excludes and condemns same sex sexual relationships (as in Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1 etc)

the first 2 don't mention homosexuality at all, and the last 3 aren't Jesus' teachings. <staff edit>

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Lightmorseman.

the first 2 don't mention homosexuality at all, and the last 3 aren't Jesus' teachings.

None mention homosexuality as such the first two define God&#8217;s creation purpose for man and woman to be united, which means God didn&#8217;t have a creation purpose for man and man to be united. The other three are as much Jesus as any of the gospels, Paul received his revelation from the risen Lord (Gal 1)

<Staff Edit>

I gave the Biblical references as my benchmark, your could have given some regarding false testimony, if you agree that is.

 

[b&wpac4]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163810/Gay-couple-sue-Christians-barring-hotel-bed.html

They are being sued. This does not mean the gay couple will win. I can be sued in the US for almost any reason. Please say that they are in trouble when the case is settled in the gay couple's favor.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,
On the contrary being sued is for most people in the UK being in trouble, it is not like the US.
The question is why can all unmarried couples except gay couples put up with it?

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,
On the contrary being sued is for most people in the UK being in trouble, it is not like the US.
The question is why can all unmarried couples except gay couples put up with it?

How does suing work differently? I will admit I am unfamiliar with UK law. In the US, being sued could be considered being "in trouble" due to the fact that you must go to court and try to win your case.

 

[LightHorseman]

None mention homosexuality as such

Right. So quit claiming Jesus condemns homosexuality, when, as you quite rightly say, nothing Jesus said mentions homosexuality.

We Christians follow the teachings of Christ, not Paul. Paul said that his writings were his own opinion, not Christ's.

 

[SallyNow]

They are being sued. This does not mean the gay couple will win. I can be sued in the US for almost any reason. Please say that they are in trouble when the case is settled in the gay couple's favor.

Yup, getting sued for 5000 Pounds is not being "in trouble" in some sense that their livelihood is at stake. It's a lawsuit. They happen all the time, they get reversed all the time, they get thrown out of court all the time.

But I still haven't heard an answer to why hotels and B&Bs that are friendly to homosexuals are endangering the rights of the religious. Are clothing-optional B&B's damaging the rights of the religious? Are artist's retreats damaging the rights of scientists? Are bird-watching retreats damaging the rights of non-biologists and non-birdwatchers? Are science conferences damaging the rights of non-scientists?

 

[Andreusz]

In fact topically in the UK in a national newspaper on Sunday we have a report of a Christian couple who own a hotel also in trouble with refusing a gay couple a shared room. As they have pointed out they have always been refusing unmarried couples rooms and no-one has made formal complaints to the authorities. Of course gay same sex couples can not get married in the UK, it’s a civil partnership, just seems everything is ok until gays don’t get what they want.

Couple A are not allowed to share a room because they are not married. However, they can get married and then they wil be allowed to share a room.
Couple B are not allowed to share a room because they are not married.
However, they are not legally entitled to get married, ever.

This is called discrimination.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Lighthorseman,

Right. So quit claiming Jesus condemns homosexuality, when, as you quite rightly say, nothing Jesus said mentions homosexuality.

Jesus condemns homosexuality
In fact I never said He condemns homosexuality thats what you said.

We Christians follow the teachings of Christ, not Paul. Paul said that his writings were his own opinion, not Christ's.

No Paul points out when he gives his own opinions such as 1 Corinthians 7:12, so when he starts the passage, because of so much sexual immorality each man should have his own wife he is speaking what Christ has revealed to him, see Galatians 1.
We Christians know Paul gives the teachings of Christ just as all the NT does. Paul encountered the risen Lord, we don&#8217;t think Luke did.