An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[BigBadWlf]

Well, usually when our Lord speak of things there is also the opposite to those things, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this, for an example our Lord talks about them that “at the beginning made them male and female”, our Lord didn’t make the “male and male, or female and female”, did He?

And what skin color did Adam and Eve have? Since they could only have one (assuming they were same since Eve was made from Adam) then it follows that God favors the race with the skin color matching Adam’s and therefore discrimination against people who do not have Adam’s skin color is acceptable

In 1 Cor. 6:9 it is written that “homosexuals and sodomites will not inherit the Kingdom of God”, and Paul also said “do not be deceived”, meaning that believers need to live righteously, not as a homosexual or a sodomite, to inherit His Kingdom. And further on in 1 Cor. 7 he speaks about sexual immorality and wife and husband affection, and there is no mention about a male and males or a female and female affection. And that husband and wife have authority over each others body, and there is no mention about a male and male or a female and female to have such authority.

And what evidence is there that the Greek word αρσενοκοιται translates as ‘homosexual? None.
No bible translated it as homosexual until 1982. Historically it has been more often translated to mean masturbators. It ahs also been translated to mean idolaters, fancy dressers, employers of prostitutes and those who put on airs

In Jude 7 it speaks of “sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh”, which is reference to sexual perversion and homosexual acts, which will all be judged by our Almighty God, the same as they were in Gen. 19:5.

The text says that the city was destroyed for "excessive lust" and that this lust was specifically for "different flesh" (sarkas heteras). Sarkas means "flesh" and heteras is the word for "different." Remember that homosexual refers to someone attracted to the same gender and heterosexual refers to those attracted to the different gender. According to Jude the people of Sodom were "heterosexuals" --an odd way to describe gay men. Clearly, homosexuality is not the lust for "different flesh" described in Jude 7.

Then what is it that Jude condemns in Sodom? The clue is in the previous verse. The sin and punishment of Sodom is like that of the angels in verse 6. These angels did not stay in their high (arkhe) place, but rather abandoned it for an alternative level. 2 Peter 2:4-7 likewise parallels Sodom and these angels, and in verse 10 accuses both groups of defiling passions and spite for proper authority. Because of lust they did not stay in their proper place. Other Jewish works from this period likewise parallel the sin of Sodom and these angels (e.g. Test. Naphtali 3:4-5).

In short, the angels are condemned for lusting after human females (Gen 6:2-4) and the people of Sodom for lusting after the two angels who visited the city. When the angels lusted for humans they left their proper position and authority to have human wives. When the people of Sodom lusted for the two visitors, they desired different (non-human) flesh. It is like an inversion of bestiality

 

[BigBadWlf]

The fact that marriage law grew up around men and women is not at all addressed by the objection that infertile men and women have been married. This false assertion needs to be abandoned and replaced by something relevant to the issue. "You have been told" is not an argument. Explanations as to why people do not accept the assertion have been offered, and the debate bogs down as gay rights activists then simply refuse to discuss the issue further.

It is those trying to justify discrimination that bog the issue down. Especially when they attempt to use the “fertility” but demand that it only apply to the specific minority they want to discriminate against.

It shows that the issue is not the biological ability to reproduce but rather it is the single specific minority group that they are attempting to apply the biological ability to reproduce to. If it were a legitimate point then the biological ability to reproduce would be applied equally to all and not just to the single minority group that the proponents wish to discriminate against.

To repeat, for most of human history it was not possible to tell if someone was permanently infertile, therefore marriage laws did not arise concerning the issue. If gay activists demand that they either be allowed to marry, or all infertile couples be required to divorce, that is their point to make, not anyone else's.

Of course no one is making such a demand.

Marriage in this country is not and never has been dependant on fertility, either the biological ability to have children or the intent to have children. Heterosexual couples need not provide evidence of fertility nor affirm that they will have children. Similarly marriages here are not legally ended because of fertility or lack there of.

We have yet to hear a logical reason form those trying to use “fertility” to justify discrimination against minorities as to why fertility (either the lack of ability to biologically reproduce or the intent to have children) should not be grounds for the same discrimination they are trying to jsustify

Even when people like myself have proposed, or accepted the proposals of others regarding a separate kind of union for homosexuals, the idea has been shot down.

Just like separate schools and separate drinking fountains should have been enough for blacks

This is because the goal of the movement really has nothing to do with homosexuals, homosexuality, or even freedom of sexual behavior. It has to do with overthrowing freedom of religion, and specifically attacking Christianity.

How exactly does equality overthrow freedom of religion?

The fact is that marriage does not currently exist for gay couples and has not existed for them in all but a vanishing few examples worldwide and throughout time.

Not a fact at all…in fact (pun intended) the reverse is true. More and more countries are embracing marriage equality and rejecting discrimination

That in its turn is because it describes a relationship that does not apply to same sex couples, and a part of that relationship is that they found families. All of family law deals with these sorts of issues. To argue that they don't really deal with these issues because infertile couples are married is to basically deflect the issue and avoid the larger, more obvious truth.

The larger truth being that it is hypocritical to try to justify discrimination based on “fertility” but applying it ONLY to the minority group one wishes to discriminate against.

If there are any of you who actually care about the issue beyond simply making accusations over and over again, please try to read and understand these arguments, and stop repeating the same accusations over and over again.

Please explain just why the lack of ability to biologically reproduce is justification for discrimination against gays and lesbians but it is not justification for discrimination against infertile heterosexuals

 

[BigBadWlf]

Bush lawyers are a dime a dozen, as in the case of many of the comments I have read. Even in Matt. 19, our Lord says speaks on a "rich man to sell what he has and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come and follow ME".

Therefore, what could we define from what our Lord is saying, and from that only rich men who sell everything will have a treasure in heaven. We all know that that "treasure" is eternal life, the same trophy that we receive at the end of the our race of endurance, and is called "evelasting life". But, many will still debate even those words in a form of godliness.

I've seen enough in ministry to know that "homosexuality" is a spiritual disease, and they are not born like that, because our Creator concieved and brought forth a perfect specimen in His image, and it wasn't until the child left the womb that the childs spirit was contaminated by the "wiles of the enemy" on the impartation of the wrong spirit.

Wow…so gays and lesbians are “diseased” and “contaminated”
Would you find it acceptable to describe any other minority like this?

Many homosexuals and lesbians have been delivered from their strongholds and strongmen, set free from their captivity of bondage, and healed by counselling through the healing ministry.

You mean like ex-gay ministry Exodus co-foundrs Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper? They left Exodus in 1979 to marry each other. Bussee has publicly stated that not only did he lie about his change in sexual orientation in all his years associated with Exodus he has never known nayone to change form homosexual to hetersexual.

Or maybe you mean people like Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle. In 2007 they issued a public appology for their invovlement in ex-gay ministries and the pain that such ministries have inflicted uon others and for the false witness they and their minstires propogated.

 

[Andreusz]

That's skepticism, in the broadest sense -- the tendency to actively resist belief rather than to maintain an open mind.

I would disagree with you here, very profoundly. To me the tendency to actively resist belief is maintaining an open mind.

 

[Shane Roach]

I would disagree with you here, very profoundly. To me the tendency to actively resist belief is maintaining an open mind.

I'd agree with you if the context were different. But that's just the thing. The entire argument is simply one that blurs the line between belief and conviction by playing on the connotations of the words and their usage. If I nether believe there is a god, nor believe there is not a god, then I am resisting a belief. I am refusing to be driven to make a decision on the matter.

Now someone comes along and tells me I am an atheist. "Well, I don't want to be an atheist. Those people argue that there is no God. I don't necessarily believe, but I certainly do not dismiss the possibility."

Whether you choose to give such a person a name or not, that is a legitimate, neutral stance on the issue. It is the actual "default". "I don't know" is an honest, reasoned answer to a lot of questions in life.

Pretending that actively disbelieving is neutral is to claim this man's position simply does not exist, which I have to tell you, is going to be a hard sell on me because it was my position before I believed in God.

 

[Andreusz]

^ No, I agree with you here -- "I don't know" is often the only possible answer to many questions in life.

 

[JGG]

I'd agree with you if the context were different. But that's just the thing. The entire argument is simply one that blurs the line between belief and conviction by playing on the connotations of the words and their usage. If I nether believe there is a god, nor believe there is not a god, then I am resisting a belief. I am refusing to be driven to make a decision on the matter.

Now someone comes along and tells me I am an atheist. "Well, I don't want to be an atheist. Those people argue that there is no God. I don't necessarily believe, but I certainly do not dismiss the possibility."

Whether you choose to give such a person a name or not, that is a legitimate, neutral stance on the issue. It is the actual "default". "I don't know" is an honest, reasoned answer to a lot of questions in life.

Pretending that actively disbelieving is neutral is to claim this man's position simply does not exist, which I have to tell you, is going to be a hard sell on me because it was my position before I believed in God.

Ummmm....? As an agnostic I don't accept the concept of a god. Nor do I accept that there cannot be a god. You could say that I disbelieve in both concepts. However, I am still neutral, and still an atheist.

 

[Shane Roach]

Wow…so gays and lesbians are “diseased” and “contaminated”
Would you find it acceptable to describe any other minority like this?

Yes. People who have sex with their daughters, for example.

I am beginning to be moved however by your constant cries for equality. David Geffen and Barny Frank really do begin to remind me so much of Rosa Parks the more you repeat these same seven or eight sentences over and over. And I mean really, who am I to ask you to explain your beliefs? You are so noble, and your style enriches this discussion so deeply. Really, there is just no denying your righteous cause.

Apparently black civil rights leaders have a lot of sympathy for the comparison as well.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/lar/lar_01homosexualscivil1.html

I guess I am just going to have to change my tune. I can't go on resisting the truth!

 

[Verv]

What I think is funny about this is the fact that you Westerners associate dislike of homosexuality with religion.

In the East, atheists just as much as theists dislike homosexuals. China is 95%+ atheist and they treat gays like trash.

Why?

Because being homosexual is disgusting and unnatural; they often start bending the gender lines and really end up looking unnatural and it makes the average person uncomfortable and... It's kind of disgusting.

Is it really that hard?

In China you can meet probably 900 million atheists who dislike homosexuality and regard it as disgusting.

So how about we view this through real terms and STUFF< and not let these stereotypes about religious people being intolerant exist...

You aren't making sense.

 

[Shane Roach]

Ummmm....? As an agnostic I don't accept the concept of a god. Nor do I accept that there cannot be a god. You could say that I disbelieve in both concepts. However, I am still neutral, and still an atheist.

I'm not going to argue with you about what you call yourself. But when I was agnostic, I did not prefer to be called atheist for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I was disenchanted with the way famous atheists went about their business. It never sounded neutral to me.

In the interests of full disclosure, I became a Christian at 14. My father is something of a skeptic. I never have been able to tell what it is he truly believes. My mother was agnostic leaning Christian until her third marriage ended, then she changed her perspective on life and became a devout Christian. She is now the wife of a Methodist minister. It's good to finally see her in a happy relationship.

My step mother was ironically probably the single most influential person in getting me to go to church, yet she was not a regular church goer even then, and is more and more disenchanted with religion now. Unfortunately, the only two things that I know of that seem to be leading her this way were the loss of my father's third election for District Attorney, and her struggle to come to terms with her brother's homosexuality and the church's teaching on that issue.

So that's the rough sketch of the background from which I came.

I think it would be a useful thing to co-opt the word "agnostic" to mean the middle ground, since hardly anyone argues the hard core agnostic position any more.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Are blacks capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other blacks could effect someone who isn't black?

Are Jews are capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Jews could effect someone who isn't Jewish?

Are Hispanics capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Hispanics could effect someone who isn't Hispanic?

Are left handers capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other left handed individuals could effect someone who is right handed?

Are Muslims capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Muslims could effect someone who isn't Muslim?

Are Buddhists are capable of understanding how being attracted to, falling in love with and getting married to other Buddhists could effect someone who isn't Buddhist?

are homosexuals capable of understanding that minority status is not decided by sexuality?

are you capable of understanding that using minorities to advance your agenda is emotional and would make allot of minorities angry at you??

are you capable of understanding that using racism emotionally in nearly every post of yours shows that you are intellectually unable to use any other angles that try to show your argument in a positive light?

are you capable of understanding that since gay people have suffered nothing like slaves have that it is dishonest and despicable to use their dismay and troubles during those times as a tool to push your agenda?

are you capable of understanding that the gay community has done very little, if anything, to help minorities in this world and provide them food and shelter, and that based on pure percentage that the majority of the gay community has barely anything to do with helping the poor and the ghettos in minority areas???

 

[Andreusz]

What I think is funny about this is the fact that you Westerners associate dislike of homosexuality with religion.

The Western people who are most vociferously anti-gay are usually coming from a religious perspective. This is why we need to address them more than people coming from a secular perspective.

In the East, atheists just as much as theists dislike homosexuals. China is 95%+ atheist and they treat gays like trash.

Why?

Because being homosexual is disgusting and unnatural;

Not everyone thinks it's disgusting, and as has been shown many many times on this board, it is not unnatural.

they often start bending the gender lines and really end up looking unnatural and it makes the average person uncomfortable

Personally, I don't care if I make other people uncomfortable. That is not a reason to deny gay people equal rights with straights.

You aren't making sense.

See my explanation above.

 

[Andreusz]

are homosexuals capable of understanding that minority status is not decided by sexuality?

Minority status is decided by anything that sets you apart from other people.

are you capable of understanding that using minorities to advance your agenda is emotional and would make allot of minorities angry at you??

That does not make the comparison invalid.

are you capable of understanding that using racism emotionally in nearly every post of yours shows that you are intellectually unable to use any other angles that try to show your argument in a positive light?

As this is addressed specifically to BBW, I will leave it to him to answer.

are you capable of understanding that since gay people have suffered nothing like slaves have that it is dishonest and despicable to use their dismay and troubles during those times as a tool to push your agenda?

The point is not that gay people have not suffered as much as some other minorities. Degrees of suffering do not determine your rights. The point is that by and large, gay people are not treated as well as heterosexuals, especially white heterosexual males.

are you capable of understanding that the gay community has done very little, if anything, to help minorities in this world and provide them food and shelter, and that based on pure percentage that the majority of the gay community has barely anything to do with helping the poor and the ghettos in minority areas???

Even if this is true, is this a reason to deny anyone equal rights? Irrelevant.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

Please, you posted a commentary already which shows why the hotel owner is in trouble. Since civil partnerships in England are equivalent to marriage a hotel owner cannot refuse a room to a couple with a civil partnership that he offers to a married couple.

Wrong!
Gay organisations tell gays and lesbians the civil partnership is a gay marriage
http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/
But this is because they cant accept anybody else’s views. In fact, from government sources civil partnerships are civil partnerships as opposed to marriages. http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/civilpartnerships/

If the couple is unmarried/not in a civil partnership he can then refuse them the room. If he allows a room to a married couple but not to any same-sex couples (regardless of their legal status) he is in violation of the law and will lose his lawsuit.

First you need to understand the law, the couple are not married, the hotel refuses rooms to unmarrieds. … as I said.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Braunwyn,
What is objective is that a same sex union cant reproduce whereas a male/female one can.

Again, so? I am married. I do not have children. Not having children does not affect the fact that I'm married. Why this is so difficult for you to grasp, I'm not sure.

It is not difficult for me to grasp, what I have said is undisputable. As opposed to same sex couples, male and female can reproduce. Sure male/female couples need to be fertile but why apply such a criteria to male/female when its irrelevant to same sex couples anyway. The reason is of course so as to be able to ignore the reality.

I also sense the infamous slippery slope, a skill I'm learning from your ilk, that such a day would not be far off for you all to start demanding that anyone who wants to be married must adhere to this or that set of cockamammy beliefs. So here I feel that if you discrimate against one group, you'll discrimate against all and you must be pushed back.

In fact I would suggest you are criticising others of what you yourself are doing. You are assuming your view is right and others must be wrong. Whilst you see others views as cockamammy, others see your views as having lost touch with reality for the reasons explained.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To BigBadwlf,

Were they denied a room because they were not married? Or were they denied a room because there were members of a minority? I would be anything it was because of the latter.

Of course its possible, but then perhaps you have a persecution complex as there is no evidence for this in the report which shows all unmarried couples were treated the same.


Just to clear up an issue.
Lighthorseman said that in two gospel passages homosexuality is not mentioned, and Polycarp1 has been on the same lines.
Now homosexuality and heterosexuality are human concepts. God&#8217;s Biblical testimony says God created woman to unite with man and same sex acts are error. Now if one wishes to apply the modern concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality how does God creating woman for man to be united fit in? Well only as heterosexual, homosexual would be a foreign and ungodly concept.
So one could either say homosexuality isn&#8217;t mentioned or the concept is excluded.
If Lighthorseman and yourself grasped what these two passages in the Bible say, which your Roman Catholic church teaches, you wouldn&#8217;t be asking about concepts of homo and hetero sexuality which the two passages show are false concepts.

And following your response to the scriptures cited by John1032 in post #541, can I ask you how you are supposed to be Roman Catholic when you neither agree with what the scriptures say, nor the Roman Catholic Church&#8217;s agreement with what they say?

 

[sidhe]

Because being homosexual is disgusting and unnatural; they often start bending the gender lines and really end up looking unnatural and it makes the average person uncomfortable and... It's kind of disgusting.

Is it really that hard?

Uh, dude...you're a skinhead. I know you're a SHARP, but you make "the average person uncomfortable" and most people think associating with skins is "kind of disgusting."

And, of course, you do it by choice. If you maintain that homosexuality is a choice, then how does that make what you do any different? You'll probably say that homosexuality is Biblically condemned, just as a guess...but couldn't your appearance possibly prove to be a "stumbling block" to your brother? Someone know you're Christian, knows you're a skin, and gets a bad taste about Christianity accordingly? If you say you don't care, well...

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

...notice it also begins with that reminder to not judge one another. I think the "don't be a stumbling block" and the "servant of all" ideas are directly tied together. If your appearance can make people uncomfortable, then you cannot judge others' appearances on the basis of "it makes people uncomfortable."

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

Just sayin', yo.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,
Sadly I don&#8217;t think there is much common ground.

Even if this is true, is this a reason to deny anyone equal rights? Irrelevant.

We don&#8217;t believe there are gay people, we know you do based on your sexual attraction, but we see it&#8217;s a dysfunctional because sexual reproduction is male and female which is why the species has two sexes in the first place.
We accept that you have same sex attraction but we don't think its relevant. You don&#8217;t even seem to accept it is relevant that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce.
My point is, our basis is on what we see, the whole of the species as all are male and female, your basis is on just what a few of the species who have same sex attraction, feel.
So with respect, this means what you claim as rights we do not see as rights at all, rather errors.

 

[Psudopod]

It is not difficult for me to grasp, what I have said is undisputable. As opposed to same sex couples, male and female can reproduce. Sure male/female couples need to be fertile but why apply such a criteria to male/female when its irrelevant to same sex couples anyway. The reason is of course so as to be able to ignore the reality.

We&#8217;re trying to show you that reproductive ability is not a valid criteria for you to use. If it was, applying it would get the result you wanted &#8211; opposite sex valid, same sex invalid. But as demonstrated it does not.

Some couples can reproduce unassisted, some couples can reproduce with assistance, some cannot altogether and some chose not to. No one is denied the right to marry based on their ability or desire to reproduce, so why are you applying this special criteria to same sex couples?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

We&#8217;re trying to show you that reproductive ability is not a valid criteria for you to use.

And I am trying to get you to address my point which shows you I am also saying that.
At present you are trying to tell me I can&#8217;t use a criteria that I am telling you I am not using.
You need to address the point I made
As opposed to same sex couples, male and female can reproduce.
The factor that causes this fundamental difference is not fertility, but the sex of the couple, because it doesn&#8217;t matter whether a same sex couple is fertile or not they can never reproduce.
As to reproduction, well the reproduction of the species is about as fundamental as one can get to the survival of the species so I suggest it is a crucial and significant factor.

Now you said some couples can reproduce unassisted, but again not same sex couples; the problem with your argument is same sex couples and homosexuality.