Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Philothei]

What demonizing? If the majority still rules, some rights will eventually be infringed. Do I have a right to not let my kid be exposed to a lifestyle I do not wish for her to "be educated in"? Why my rights are less important than a homosexual couple coming to my kid's school to "show and tell" about their marriage? Teaching children a lifestyle that I do not "wish to teach it to my kid" I infringe in their right to live that lifestyle? :o

I do not think so.... That is where the state interferes with my family and my faith...

And just to add... I have never seen anyone bring in a heterosexual family for show and tell....How so? Like heterosexual families are not worthy? are the majority so what? And what about interacial families? They should bring them in also... That would be a fair approach to any given issue...But no it is true that the Homosexual agenda is usually intererested in having that "homosexual week awareness" ONLY... How sad indeed.

 

[b&wpac4]

And just to add... I have never seen anyone bring in a heterosexual family for show and tell....How so? Like heterosexual families are not worthy? are the majority so what? And what about interacial families? They should bring them in also... That would be a fair approach to any given issue...But no it is true that the Homosexual agenda is usually intererested in having that "homosexual week awareness" ONLY... How sad indeed.

Well, perhaps it's because the children never thought to bring their parents. I mean, when I was young that thought never would have crossed my mind. I preferred to show off my Star Wars collectors cards or my Brooks Robinson autographed baseball card than my parents.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Not so it is a fallacy. If a is somehow bad and b is bad then a and b are okay...logic which is non sensical....

First your statement doesn’t work
Knocking someone unconscious is bad
Cutting on someone is bad
Surgery is not bad


Second your statement doesn’t apply to the post you are going after.
The argument is divorce is bad (or good)
And so far only anti-gay activists have tired to claim same gendered marriage is bad (without ever bothering to back up their claims)

Beechy was not claiming divorce was not bad (or good for that matter) you put those words into her mouth and thus the strawman

Is this a trhead topic? Did not think so.

Yet that was the point Beechy was responding to. If you are upset by the broaching of the topic I suggest you take it up with the individual who introduced it

Your misdirection here does not change the simple fact that the same arguments being used to justify anti-gay discrimination in legal recognition of same gendered marriage could have been (and were) used as arguments to justify discrimination against interracial couples

Homosexual unions and interactial marriages between man and woman is like apples and oranges...

No the parallels are many
And the parallels are disliked by those trying to justify discrimination.

In both case are minority groups denied legal right to marry based on the majorities interoperation of the bible and on the long custom of denying such couples the right to marry. The fact that the arguments used to justify anti-miscegenation laws are recycled only emphasizes the parallels

Interacial marriage is irrelevant to prove any point ...Anyways the topic is about homosexuals and bisexuals last time I checked.

But the parallels remain, which is what Beechy was responding to.
The fact that you do not like to acknowledge the parallels does not make them go away

No pointing out the fallacy I mentioned above.

Actually I was the one pointing out the fallacy you were engaging in

STill is.. .The majority of the earths's population are not in homosexual unions

The majority of earth’s population are not in interracial unions. Does that make discrimination acceptable?

This BTW is another logical fallacy, specifically argument ad antiquitatem (argument to antiquity or tradition) it is the argument that discrimination is a good thing because people in the past discriminated

and it is. Comparing slavery to marriage is alike? Slavery was a practice as old as recorded history it just changed its form in recent years we call it "labour" still people are "employed" by Lords. Just because we vote we are qualified as 'free man"? People can "chose" who they become slaves too... But that is another topic. Marriage is an institution dealing with intimate relationships among a man and woman.

You didn’t answer the question: Did the fact that slavery was widespread and accepted make ending slavery a bad thing?

Apples and oranges again. Marriage between man and woman and different races is the same as among same sex? or tommorrow with animals?
Interactial marriages do not "change" the "identity" of a person. Homosexual unions do. Man created as a man and woman as a woman. The Bible never talked against interacial marriages. Actually the oppositite that there is not Jew or a Greek etc.

Same gendered marriage doesn’t change the identity of anyone either.

That is aside from the point. And not that many years ago people were saying exactly the same thing about interracial marriage.

 

[Philothei]

Because there is already pressure to the Churches to accept the homosexual agenda. The resent trial against a church that would not rent their hall for a homosexual wedding. Since they rent their premises to different groups the law (and I have not heard the outcome of that trial yet) did not cover that part, that is if a church has a right to deny (turn down) whomever they do not seem fit for renting the hall or they do not agree with the moral principles of a certain faith. If that is not infringing the society's standards on the church "territory" such as its own premises I do not know then what is...

 

[BigBadWlf]

It is not the same. Marriage by defenition applies to heterosexual couples because it was used for such unions. Just because they are called legally marriages that does not mean that they are.

Your denial that marriages are marriages does not change those marriages into something else.


I am suddenly quite curious. How would you respond to a person observing an interracial marriage taking place in your church who says exactly what you are saying here. That what is going on is not a marriage at all.

State cannot change the Christian definition on marriage.

And you cannot change marriage to exclude minorities

Last time I checked there was a seperation between church and state.

And that means that the state cannot engage in discrimination based on personal interpretation of religion

 

[Shane Roach]

No the parallels are many
And the parallels are disliked by those trying to justify discrimination.

This is all you have. This is why you repeat it. This has been demonstrated to be wrong along with assertions about how healthy homosexuality and a whole host of other issues, and this is always, always what this conversation comes back to.

Because it is, at the root, all you have, and it is weak and untrue.

CF loves it though. I am sure it drives posting numbers way up every time you start flinging this accusation around.

 

[b&wpac4]

Because there is already pressure to the Churches to accept the homosexual agenda. The resent trial against a church that would not rent their hall for a homosexual wedding. Since they rent their premises to different groups the law (and I have not heard the outcome of that trial yet) did not cover that part, that is if a church has a right to deny (turn down) whomever they do not seem fit for renting the hall or they do not agree with the moral principles of a certain faith. If that is not infringing the society's standards on the church "territory" such as its own premises I do not know then what is...

Those facts are slightly skewed.

The church owned land, that was not connected directly to the church, that they offered to be rented to the public. Under New Jersey law, a property rented out like that was considered to fall under the business zone, and not the religious zone. In other words, the church was trying to make money off this land they owned by renting it out to whoever could pay to rent it. There was nothing in any of the renting agreements that suggested it was restricted in any way.

This case gets blown way, way out of proportion. If the church didn't know that was the law, shame on them!

 

[BigBadWlf]

What demonizing? If the majority still rules, some rights will eventually be infringed.

Sorry. But you are wrong.

The constitution explicitly states that: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


That includes minorities

Do I have a right to not let my kid be exposed to a lifestyle I do not wish for her to "be educated in"?

The black lifestyle?
The Jewish lifestyle?

Why my rights are less important than a homosexual couple coming to my kid's school to "show and tell" about their marriage? Teaching children a lifestyle that I do not "wish to teach it to my kid" I infringe in their right to live that lifestyle? :o

Why does your right to be prejudiced trump the rights of same gendered couples?

I do not think so.... That is where the state interferes with my family and my faith...

What exactly are you afraid of?

 

[BigBadWlf]

People have a right to base their ideas about what would be good policy on anything they chose. If the US chooses to have Christian values, then the laws should reflect Christian values. If the US chooses to have no values, there's really nothing anyone can do about that.

But to single out someone's religion as being specifically unworthy of being considered as a source for values is essentially to do away with freedom of religion, which is not incidentally what most people who push gay marriage want for an outcome to begin with.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest anything but further harm coming as a result of gay marriage.

And you are continually asked for concrete observable examples of the “harm” you keep going on about. Yet you never provide any

 

[BigBadWlf]

And just to add... I have never seen anyone bring in a heterosexual family for show and tell....How so? Like heterosexual families are not worthy? are the majority so what? And what about interacial families? They should bring them in also... That would be a fair approach to any given issue...But no it is true that the Homosexual agenda is usually intererested in having that "homosexual week awareness" ONLY... How sad indeed.

Any actual evidence to show any of this actually happening?

 

[Philothei]

But the parallels remain, which is what Beechy was responding to.
The fact that you do not like to acknowledge the parallels does not make them go away

I do not "like" is far from they do not jive to get this straight

Interacial marriages are accepted in all churches...Doh... does this make a point to ya? or ring a bell ding ding ... Homosexual marriage is NOT in the Bible never was never will be.. by any stretch of any wild imagination....I am not arguing "custom" here but actual beign "allowed" or not...

The majority of earth’s population are not in interracial unions. Does that make discrimination acceptable?

No but it is already accepted and based in theBible... period so no sense to what custom has to do iwth that...and again you are comparing that to the homosexual and that is a fallacy...for sure..

You didn’t answer the question: Did the fact that slavery was widespread and accepted make ending slavery a bad thing?

I did not all customs were good and marriage was and is good. I am not arguing about custom though again but a religious practice...an institution given to us by God.

Same gendered marriage doesn’t change the identity of anyone either.

According to the bible it does. It does changes the identity God gave them as it says "man and woman he created them" It is in Genesis or you do not accept Genesis? That is actually the point. God created us as different genders for a purpose of Adam not to be alone and have a helper... He did not make two mailes or two females now did He?

I do not care what people said about interactial marriages ... that is not the topic neither a while man and a black woman qualifies as a man marrying another man. Discrimination about color is human element and it comes from phobias towards their own human beings.... God's law about the "nature of man" does not change. The fact God created man and woman and told they to multiply is what matters the most.

 

[Philothei]

Wh

y does your right to be prejudiced trump the rights of same gendered couples?

See that is excatly the conflict of interests that De'Toquielle talked about. You are answering me with a question... First off and second:: So if a murderer has a lifestyle like Mason and rights to "educate" about his murders he too should be allowed to come to my kid's school to teach them how to be a killer? Why infringe his rights? Lossing all sense of logic and what is good for our society suddenly is the "right idea of freedom" This is lunacy not freedom...

 

[Shane Roach]

And you are continually asked for concrete observable examples of the “harm” you keep going on about. Yet you never provide any

If by that you mean I have posted studies that you personally claimed said one thing but actually said the exact opposite, then yes, I never provide anything.

What actually happens is that when I point out that research proves kids do better with a healthy family with both genders for role modeling, people just change the subject, like saying, "yeah but certain kids come from bad families, or their families abandon them."

Which says what, that we should help further destroy the concept of marriage so more kids can come from bad families, so gays can adopt them?

But no, I have answered the question many, many times over.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Because there is already pressure to the Churches to accept the homosexual agenda.

Evidence?

The resent trial against a church that would not rent their hall for a homosexual wedding. Since they rent their premises to different groups the law (and I have not heard the outcome of that trial yet) did not cover that part, that is if a church has a right to deny (turn down) whomever they do not seem fit for renting the hall or they do not agree with the moral principles of a certain faith. If that is not infringing the society's standards on the church "territory" such as its own premises I do not know then what is...

If a church or any other organization is going to advertise retable space that is “open to the public” then they by law cannot discriminate. Which is just what the church you are trying to glorify did. Said church then changed it’s mind when a minority wanted to rent the above mentioned advertised space. The church will likely loose its lawsuit because of the long standing law prohibiting public accommodation discrimination. Simply put they don’t get to deny public accommodations to minorities

It's highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights. Why would a same gendered couple want to get married in a place where they would have to worry about their safety and the safety of their families and children? Just as, say, a Muslim couple would not want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil.


Now…If that church were to have denied renting its facility out to a black couple just because of the color of the couple’s skin would you be defending that church?

 

[Philothei]

What exactly are you afraid of?

Basically nothing. The truth is not "afraid" of nothing. Indocrination of the youth in America and all the western society about homosexual lifestyle is indeed an overall campaingn even in countries as Christian as Greece. We have all the right to fight back for that agenda I do not see how this infringes the rights of the homosexuals. Honesty you cannot force morality on others so why others worry about "being discriminated " is beyond me. What if they are? Homosexuals think they are on the right so why do they really care what Christians do think about their lifestyle? What if we do not want to teach it to our kids? The right to chose should be bylateral should it not?

 

[b&wpac4]

Basically nothing. The truth is not "afraid" of nothing. Indocrination of the youth in America and all the western society about homosexual lifestyle is indeed an overall campaingn even in countries as Christian as Greece. We have all the right to fight back for that agenda I do not see how this infringes the rights of the homosexuals. Honesty you cannot force morality on others so why others worry about "being discriminated " is beyond me. What if they are? Homosexuals think they are on the right so why do they really care what Christians do think about their lifestyle? What if we do not want to teach it to our kids? The right to chose should be bylateral should it not?

I don't think they do care what you think of them. I think they care that they are not afforded the same legal rights, the right of marriage, that others are allowed to enjoy.

 

[Philothei]

If by that you mean I have posted studies that you personally claimed said one thing but actually said the exact opposite, then yes, I never provide anything.

What actually happens is that when I point out that research proves kids do better with a healthy family with both genders for role modeling, people just change the subject, like saying, "yeah but certain kids come from bad families, or their families abandon them."

Which says what, that we should help further destroy the concept of marriage so more kids can come from bad families, so gays can adopt them?

But no, I have answered the question many, many times over.

It does not matter Shane. I personally have been looking over your "evidence" those who have ears let them hear. No sweat here.

The data that exists on such adoptions is so thin that no "scientific" method could possibly make any sense. Like I said before there is not even nto a second or third generation adopted children by homosexual families that we can look at.
Adopting or having children is not a kind of a "trophy" and that is how some couples see their children. Once those who are so eager to adopt will realize it takes real work to parent they will quickly maybe change their minds. I would rather see statistics or how many homosexual couples actually have children than heterosexual ones. I bet the numbers are way lower.

 

[Shane Roach]

It does not matter Shane. I personally have been looking over your "evidence" those who have ears let them hear. No sweat here.

The data that exists on such adoptions is so thin that no "scientific" method could possibly make any sense. Like I said before there is not even nto a second or third generation adopted children by homosexual families that we can look at.
Adopting or having children is not a kind of a "trophy" and that is how some couples see their children. Once those who are so eager to adopt will realize it takes real work to parent they will quickly maybe change their minds. I would rather see statistics or how many homosexual couples actually have children than heterosexual ones. I bet the numbers are way lower.

There are a surprising number of homosexuals who have kids from heterosexual liaisons, yet the continual claim is that being homosexual is an unchangeable and set trait.

 

[Shane Roach]

Evidence?


If a church or any other organization is going to advertise retable space that is “open to the public” then they by law cannot discriminate. Which is just what the church you are trying to glorify did. Said church then changed it’s mind when a minority wanted to rent the above mentioned advertised space. The church will likely loose its lawsuit because of the long standing law prohibiting public accommodation discrimination. Simply put they don’t get to deny public accommodations to minorities

It's highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights. Why would a same gendered couple want to get married in a place where they would have to worry about their safety and the safety of their families and children? Just as, say, a Muslim couple would not want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil.


Now…If that church were to have denied renting its facility out to a black couple just because of the color of the couple’s skin would you be defending that church?

Homosexuality is a behavior. It's like saying they owe it to someone to rent the space for a swingers wedding and reception, and you know it. It has nothing to do with race.

 

[b&wpac4]

Homosexuality is a behavior. It's like saying they owe it to someone to rent the space for a swingers wedding and reception, and you know it. It has nothing to do with race.

From what I know, according to the law in NJ, they couldn't have denied it to the swingers wedding. I believe the only "catch" was they they could refuse renting it if they had good reason to suspect the people renting would damage the property.