An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Psudopod]

We don’t believe there are gay people, we know you do based on your sexual attraction,

There are people who are attracted to members of their own gender only. These are by definition gay people. How you can deny they exist I don’t know.

but we see it’s a dysfunctional because sexual reproduction is male and female which is why the species has two sexes in the first place.

But sexual reproduction is separate from marriage. Just because historically most children were born to married couples doesn’t mean that people need to be able to reproduce to marry, or need to be married to reproduce.

We accept that you have same sex attraction but we dot think its relevant. You don’t seem to accept it is relevant that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce.

See above. It’s relevant for reproduction, not for marriage.

My point is, our basis is on what we se, 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.

Gender and orientation are two separate things. Everyone has both. Everything feels an attraction, some to the same sex, some to the opposite sex. More and more people are realising that just because some feels something for someone of the same sex, doesn’t mean those feelings are any different to someone who feels them for a member of an opposite sex. There is really no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals except who they are attracted to.

So with respect, this means what you claim as rights we do not see as rights at all, rather errors.

You’re mixing up right as in right and wrong with right as in human right.

 

[Psudopod]

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’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.

Okay, so the issue is that same sex couples cannot reproduce, right? The ability to reproduce is fundamental to the purpose of marriage in your opinion, is that right?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

There are people who are attracted to members of their own gender only. These are by definition gay people. How you can deny they exist I don’t know.

Sure there are people who are attracted to members of their own sex sexually but we don’t see these as gay people, just people with a particular sexual attraction. We don’t identify them by their sexual attraction, but we do identify them by their sex, male or female.
So we don’t deny there are people who have same sex attraction but we deny there are gay people.
So yes I see what your definition is, but you don’t seem able to acknowledge our definition.

But sexual reproduction is separate from marriage.

But my sentence didn’t reference marriage. What my sentence said was .. but we see it’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 dot think its relevant. You don’t seem to accept it is relevant that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce.

See above. It’s relevant for reproduction, not for marriage.

The relevance is to the composition of the couples so it is relevant for both that and marriage.
You are saying the very point we find crucial as to why same sex couples cannot be considered marriage, is irrelevant. Yet the crucial point is fact and therefore not irrelevant.

You’re mixing up right as in right and wrong with right as in human right.

No, humans don’t have a right to do things just because they want to or some of them feel like it

 

[SallyNow]

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.

By the East, you're obviously ignoring certain cultures that exist in countries like Indonesia, Japan, and others where people who blur the gender line are seen in high regard, not as hated or disgusting. In fact, you picked just one nation, China, to talk about. One nation that, let's face it, doesn't have the best human rights record, especially in regards to peasants, farmers, factory workers, women, lower-status men... There is a lot to celerbate about Chinese culture, but human rights isn't one of them. A deeper look into Chinese culture reveals a much more complex model than the one you put out.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,
There are people who are attracted to members of their own gender only. These are by definition gay people. How you can deny they exist I don&#8217;t know.
Sure there are people who are attracted to members of their own sex sexually but we don&#8217;t see these as gay people, just people with a particular sexual attraction. We don&#8217;t identify them by their sexual attraction, but we do identify them by their sex, male or female.
So we don&#8217;t deny there are people who have same sex attraction but we deny there are gay people.
So yes I see what your definition is, but you don&#8217;t seem able to acknowledge our definition.

But people are defined by more than their sex. For example I am a heterosexual woman. You are a heterosexual man. Flamingfemme is a homosexual woman, while Beanieboy is a homosexual man.

But sexual reproduction is separate from marriage.

But my sentence didn&#8217;t reference marriage. What my sentence said was .. 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 dot think its relevant. You don&#8217;t seem to accept it is relevant that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce.

So the only reason for a couple to come together is to reproduce? Why then do we have people who stay together for 50, 60 years, long after they will be able to have any more children? Why do people stay together even though they know they cannot have children, or they do not want children?

See above. It&#8217;s relevant for reproduction, not for marriage.

The relevance is to the composition of the couples so it is relevant for both that and marriage.
You are saying the very point we find crucial as to why same sex couples cannot be considered marriage, is irrelevant. Yet the crucial point is fact and therefore not irrelevant.

But why is reproductive ability important for homosexual couples but not for other couples?

You&#8217;re mixing up right as in right and wrong with right as in human right.

No, humans don&#8217;t have a right to do things just because they want to or some of them feel like it

I think they do, unless that causes harm to someone else. But that wasn&#8217;t the point I was making.

 

[Maren]

To Maren,

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&#8217;s views. In fact, from government sources civil partnerships are civil partnerships as opposed to marriages. http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/civilpartnerships/

First you need to understand the law, the couple are not married, the hotel refuses rooms to unmarrieds. &#8230; as I said.

And as the link you supplied several pages back stated, per the law a business cannot treat a married couple differently than a couple that has a civil partnership. I'm not claiming the two are the same, merely that English law states the two must be treated the same by businesses (such as the hotel owner), though singles (either not married or not in a civil partnership) can be treated differently (refused the room). I'm not sure why you continue to seem unable to grasp such a simple concept -- especially when your own link stated it so clearly.

And just to show you from your own post, the link you provided stated: "If you're in a civil partnership, a provider of goods or services can't treat you differently than it would treat a married couple. Goods and services available to unmarried opposite-sex couples must be available to same-sex couples not in a civil partnership." (Link to source you posted in your post)

 

[Braunwyn]

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

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.

You keep saying the same thing over and over and yet you always fail to state why it matters. Of course, I realize that you don't understand why it matters and it's just all you're left with.

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.

The difference though is that I have no desire to force my views on your relationships. ,<<< Read that again. Your relationship is none of my business (providing you're in a relationship with a consenting adult). The fact that you think other people's relationships are your business is loony.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

But people are defined by more than their sex.

This is not a relevant response. The reference was the term &#8216;gay people&#8217;, which is not sex but &#8216;sexual attraction&#8217;. The definition of gay is having a same sex attraction and I referred to sexual attraction as opposed to &#8216;sex&#8217; You haven&#8217;t responded to what I said.

But sexual reproduction is separate from marriage.

But my sentence didn&#8217;t reference marriage. What my sentence said was .. 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, so no its not separate but an integral potential part.

So the only reason for a couple to come together is to reproduce?

I asked you to acknowledge that that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce. Again you haven&#8217;t acknowledged that, merely made a conclusion from it, and a conclusion which we also reject. No one has suggested reproduction is the only reason for a couple to come together, what I have said is it is nonetheless a fundamental and crucial reason.

But why is reproductive ability important for homosexual couples but not for other couples?

The whole human species depends of reproduction to survive, aren&#8217;t homosexuals a part of the human species? If they are why would it not be important for homosexuals as well?

I think they do, unless that causes harm to someone else. But that wasn&#8217;t the point I was making.

Well it was the point I was making.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

And as the link you supplied several pages back stated, per the law a business cannot treat a married couple differently than a couple that has a civil partnership. I'm not claiming the two are the same, merely that English law states the two must be treated the same by businesses (such as the hotel owner), though singles (either not married or not in a civil partnership) can be treated differently (refused the room). I'm not sure why you continue to seem unable to grasp such a simple concept -- especially when your own link stated it so clearly.

On the contrary I accept you are correct here in what you say.

What I am pointing out is that thankfully although the law at least doesn&#8217;t recognise civil partnerships the same as marriage, it sadly treats them the same.
The other thing to notice is that the gay organisations don&#8217;t acknowledge the law&#8217;s difference in civil partnership and marriage but call civil partnership marriage.

As far as the hotel is concerned its basis has been in line with the law in the past whereby it refuses all unmarried couples shared rooms, non-one has attempted to force it to accept unmarried couples until the gay couple and the civil partnerships. In future it will possibly still be allowed to refuse unmarried couples but not same sex ones.

But this is a perfect example of where the gay agenda undermines religious freedom, freedom to operate according to God&#8217;s purpose for the sexes of the human species He created, to one where sexual deviation must overrule.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Braunwyn,

You keep saying the same thing over and over and yet you always fail to state why it matters. Of course, I realize that you don't understand why it matters and it's just all you're left with.

I also get the same response over and over again. Two things really. Firstly if I think it matters then that has at least as much validity as you not thinking it matters. I don&#8217;t have to prove to you why it matters anymore than you have to prove to me why it doesn&#8217;t matter

The difference though is that I have no desire to force my views on your relationships.

But you do, you think same sex sexual relationships are like marriage.

 

[b&wpac4]

But you do, you think same sex sexual relationships are like marriage.

I think same sex relationships that are involved in civil partnerships are like marriages.

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage.

Look, it says the rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. If the hotel owner cannot turn away married people, he can't turn away people in a civil partnership.

 

[Maren]

To Maren,
On the contrary I accept you are correct here in what you say.

What I am pointing out is that thankfully although the law at least doesn’t recognise civil partnerships the same as marriage, it sadly treats them the same.
The other thing to notice is that the gay organisations don’t acknowledge the law’s difference in civil partnership and marriage but call civil partnership marriage.

As far as the hotel is concerned its basis has been in line with the law in the past whereby it refuses all unmarried couples shared rooms, non-one has attempted to force it to accept unmarried couples until the gay couple and the civil partnerships. In future it will possibly still be allowed to refuse unmarried couples but not same sex ones.

But this is a perfect example of where the gay agenda undermines religious freedom, freedom to operate according to God’s purpose for the sexes of the human species He created, to one where sexual deviation must overrule.

The law is clear, they can offer rooms to those is a government recognized relationship (marriage/civil partnership) that are denied to singles. It does not matter if the single couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. What the law does not allow, and where the hotel owner failed, was in discriminating based on sexual orientation rather than legal partnership.

As for gays considering themselves married, so what? Are you trying to state they do not have the right to their own beliefs? If the government of the UK had decided to keep things the same for same and opposite sex couples, doing away with legal marriage, merely offering civil partnerships for all, would you no longer consider yourself to be married because you were legally only in a civil partnership?

 

[Braunwyn]

To Braunwyn,
I also get the same response over and over again. Two things really. Firstly if I think it matters then that has at least as much validity as you not thinking it matters.

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

But you do, you think same sex sexual relationships are like marriage.

The only way they are the same is equality under the law. Outside that, I do not think any one marriage between two consenting adults is compariable to another. And no other forum highlighs this better than CF. What you have with your wife is yours. It can not or shouldn't be, imo, measured against my marriage, joe and jane's, john and paul's, etc. Obviously, this is at the heart of your issue. You somehow believe that the meaning of your marriage is dependent on others and I disagree with that.

 

[Psudopod]

But people are defined by more than their sex.

This is not a relevant response. The reference was the term ‘gay people’, which is not sex but ‘sexual attraction’. The definition of gay is having a same sex attraction and I referred to sexual attraction as opposed to ‘sex’ You haven’t responded to what I said.

You said:

We don’t identify them by their sexual attraction, but we do identify them by their sex, male or female.

People are defined by more that their sex. I am a white, British, heterosexual woman, amongst all of these things. The fact that I am a woman does not stop me being heterosexual any more that being white does.

But sexual reproduction is separate from marriage.

But my sentence didn’t reference marriage. What my sentence said was .. but we see it’s a dysfunctional because sexual reproduction is male and female which is why the species has two sexes in the first place, so no its not separate but an integral potential part.

We were talking about marriage earlier. Whether your sentence mentioned it or not, do you agree that reproduction is separate from marriage?

So the only reason for a couple to come together is to reproduce?

I asked you to acknowledge that that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce. Again you haven’t acknowledged that, merely made a conclusion from it, and a conclusion which we also reject. No one has suggested reproduction is the only reason for a couple to come together, what I have said is it is nonetheless a fundamental and crucial reason.

You said

We accept that you have same sex attraction but we dot think its relevant. You don’t seem to accept it is relevant that the human species has two sexes, male and female which are required to sexually reproduce.

What do you mean other than reproduction is the reason for coming together? Okay, maybe you don’t consider it the only reason, but you seem to be saying it is a fundamental one. Why? Raising children in a stable relationship is best for the children, but do you really think most couples come together because they were feeling broody? Do you the men walk down the street thinking “she’s got wide child-bearing hips, better get her number?” That certainly didn’t happen for anyone I know.

But why is reproductive ability important for homosexual couples but not for other couples?

The whole human species depends of reproduction to survive, aren’t homosexuals a part of the human species? If they are why would it not be important for homosexuals as well?

Sure, but plenty of homosexuals raise children, and plenty of heterosexuals do not. The human species carries on regardless. Preventing gays from marrying isn’t going to encourage them to go out and find a woman to do it with, any more that the current situation encourages a man to leave his barren wife. The point is no one else is prevented from marrying because they cannot reproduce. No one would prevent two 70 years getting married, or two cancer patients or a child-free couple. Why apply this criteria only to same sex couples?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,
I think same sex relationships that are involved in civil partnerships are like marriages. Ok so you do as well, yet they are called civil partnerships as opposed to marriages. So although they have the some of the same rights, they are not only called the same but seen by the law as something different and that’s not even recognised by the gay lobbies.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

The law is clear, they can offer rooms to those is a government recognized relationship (marriage/civil partnership) that are denied to singles. It does not matter if the single couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. What the law does not allow, and where the hotel owner failed, was in discriminating based on sexual orientation rather than legal partnership.

Another whole load of gay activism. Firstly if the law is clear that although civil partnerships should be treated the same as marriage, why do gay organisations refer to gay marriage? The point is the law is not clear to them, they don&#8217;t realise there are civil partnerships as opposed to marriage because the law doesn&#8217;t see them as the same.
Secondly, discrimination on the grounds of unmarried has been allowed, the outlawing on the grounds of sexual orientation is simply to get gay same sex accepted, you don&#8217;t need to refer to it we know why its there.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Braunwyn,

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? [/quote Because its reality, because its reality, because its reality because its reality because its reality because its reality because its reality!

 

[Andreusz]

To Maren,

Another whole load of gay activism. Firstly if the law is clear that although civil partnerships should be treated the same as marriage, why do gay organisations refer to gay marriage? The point is the law is not clear to them, they don&#8217;t realise there are civil partnerships as opposed to marriage because the law doesn&#8217;t see them as the same.
Secondly, discrimination on the grounds of unmarried has been allowed, the outlawing on the grounds of sexual orientation is simply to get gay same sex accepted, you don&#8217;t need to refer to it we know why its there.

Don't worry BMS, ten years from now the UK will recognise gay marriage, and call it marriage.

 

[Verv]

Why is it OK to manipulate the perceptions of gender and sexuality:?

I thought there was really nothing that had to change here, man; this whole 'girl + boy' works well.

 

[sidhe]

Why is it OK to manipulate the perceptions of gender and sexuality:?

I thought there was really nothing that had to change here, man; this whole 'girl + boy' works well.

Why is it not OK?