Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

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.

Then the law is wrong, and this is the whole point. People keep saying it is not impinging on religious freedom, but clearly it is.

 

[BigBadWlf]

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 ...

Being a moderator does not mean you have the right to be rude

I find that difficult to believe. Newsweek just did a very good story on white supremacist groups in America and how such groups congregate in their own churches. I would be willing to bet an interracial couple would not be accepted in one of their churches.

Homosexual marriage is NOT in the Bible never was never will be.. by any stretch of any wild imagination....

Neither is the marriages of Hindus. Does that make discrimination OK?

I am not arguing "custom" here but actual beign "allowed" or not...

You just brought up the separation of church and state. Do you now wish to tear down that separation to inflict your personal religious views on minorities?

The laws of the United States are defined by the constitution which says that everyone, even minorities, have equal rights and equal protections. Christians do not have the special right to force discrimination onto others

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..

So its wrong to use the example that the majority of the world is not in a particular kind of relationship to justify discrimination….

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.

Again it was only a few posts ago you were demanding there be a separation between church and state.

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?

“Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Gen 1:26-27

yep he did

I do not care what people said about interactial marriages ... that is not the topic

You should. Especially since the same things are being said for both

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.

So the infertile should not be allowed to be married. Or does your argument only apply to minorities?








[/quote]

 

[b&wpac4]

Then the law is wrong, and this is the whole point. People keep saying it is not impinging on religious freedom, but clearly it is.

Well, if I remember the law correctly (keep in mind this was a long time ago I looked this up) when you rented land to the "public", it fell under a special tax group. If you designate it as religious, it falls under a different group, but has some restrictions as to the use, and I believe you can't "rent" it the same way. I also believe there was a "private" renting thing, where you could restrict the renting easily, but you had to pay more taxes. So, they decided to do the public thing, as a conscious decision on their part, so there would be less restrictions as to their renting of it, but they would get the tax benefit of being public instead of private.

In other words, the church made a decision to maximize profit and that land became governed by the laws of all other public renting, such as not being able to deny people use. In other words, it was a greedy decision meant to bring in revenue, and they got burned by it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wh

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...

You didn’t answer the question…why does your right to be prejudice trump the rights of same gendered couples?

 

[Philothei]

Evidence?

the one I provided already about the church building.


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
I do not "glorify" the church neiher remember what denom. it was. Do not put words in my mouth please!

We do not know that and they could win. It is not a matter of "minortiy" here as much as you try to make it seems like that...hehehe...you never quit do you ??
Your twisting ... No it is a matter of faith. I would not want my child seeing in the hall a homosexual couple having their reception. That infringes the Church rights... The church as non-profit should have the right to rent where it sees fit. That is Church property not "any" business. The legal rights are against the religious freedom of expression.
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.


oh..yeah? What about if they do it on purpose? how do we know they did not ? What safety where did you hear anyone being violent to any homosexual or mulsim etc....in a given church

evidence?


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?
Nice straw man now this is indeed classic case

Yes actually I would not care for that church and if an interacial couple had their reception in my church I would be very very happy

But again you are saying

All P are Q.

straw man fallacy not all who are discriminated are equal..

 

[Philothei]

You didn’t answer the question…why does your right to be prejudice trump the rights of same gendered couples?

Do you think it is okay to answer my question with another question is okay?"

If you answer me why it is okay to "indocrininize" my child into a homosexual lifestyle is okay then I will answer your question. Simple.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Not according to the APA

 

[b&wpac4]

If you answer me why it is okay to "indocrininize" my child into a homosexual lifestyle is okay then I will answer your question. Simple.

Do you consider it to be "indoctrinating" for your children to be told that same sex couples exist and it is probably not the right thing to do to kill/beat/harm them?

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, if I remember the law correctly (keep in mind this was a long time ago I looked this up) when you rented land to the "public", it fell under a special tax group. If you designate it as religious, it falls under a different group, but has some restrictions as to the use, and I believe you can't "rent" it the same way. I also believe there was a "private" renting thing, where you could restrict the renting easily, but you had to pay more taxes. So, they decided to do the public thing, as a conscious decision on their part, so there would be less restrictions as to their renting of it, but they would get the tax benefit of being public instead of private.

In other words, the church made a decision to maximize profit and that land became governed by the laws of all other public renting, such as not being able to deny people use. In other words, it was a greedy decision meant to bring in revenue, and they got burned by it.

Greedy?

No, the tax code is unfair. This is how things like this get crammed down people's throats. Tax code should not be allowed to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property, especially in terms of a religious institution.

 

[Philothei]

Do you consider it to be "indoctrinating" for your children to be told that same sex couples exist and it is probably not the right thing to do to kill/beat/harm them?

who is advocating harming another human being ? the church? ha? I do not think so. Teaching respect for another person's rights has nothing about teaching them that this lifelstyle has any merit...

 

[b&wpac4]

Greedy?

No, the tax code is unfair. This is how things like this get crammed down people's throats. Tax code should not be allowed to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property, especially in terms of a religious institution.

Take it up with New Jersey.

I don't exactly agree with the law, but one must follow the law of hte land. "Render unto Caesar" right?

 

[Shane Roach]

Not according to the APA

Yes, according to the APA, multiple psychiatric studies, papers, and the basic usage of the English language.

Yes. Behavior is behavior. It always has been and always will be. There is nothing repeated inaccurate and ludicrous statements will ever do to change that. It is behavior.

That is where your argument breaks into tiny little nonsensical bits.

 

[b&wpac4]

who is advocating harming another human being ? the church? ha? I do not think so. Teaching respect for another person's rights has nothing about teaching them that this lifelstyle has any merit...

Well, that doh smiley doesn't suggest you think I'm stupid or insinuate I asked a foolish question at all. Thanks!

Also, thanks for completely putting words in my mouth and not just answering with a simple yes or no! Completely and totally awesome and great!

Please, please, please quote me the part where I implied someone was advocating harming other people. Go on, I'll wait, I'm patient.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Evidence?

the one I provided already about the church building.

Which b&wpac4 showed to not be what you were representing it to be

I do not "glorify" the church neiher remember what denom. it was. Do not put words in my mouth please!

You held it up as a poor victim of the “gay agenda”

We do not know that and they could win. It is not a matter of "minortiy" here as much as you try to make it seems like that...

It does as the reason the church broke the law and tired to deny public accommodations because the people wanting to rent the parcel of land were members of a minority and that is the sole cited reason the church tried to discriminate

hehehe...you never quit do you ??

The truth doesn’t quit

Your twisting ... No it is a matter of faith. I would not want my child seeing in the hall a homosexual couple having their reception. That infringes the Church rights...

As noted by b&wpac4 the rental in question was a parcel of land unconnected to the church

The church as non-profit should have the right to rent where it sees fit. That is Church property not "any" business. The legal rights are against the religious freedom of expression.

Which brings me back to my earlier question. If this church were discriminating against a black couple and refusing to rent to them because they are black would you be defending the church?

oh..yeah? What about if they do it on purpose? how do we know they did not ? What safety where did you hear anyone being violent to any homosexual or mulsim etc....in a given church

evidence?

Did what on purpose?

Nice straw man now this is indeed classic case

You should look up what a strawman is, apparently you don’t know

Yes actually I would not care for that church and if an interacial couple had their reception in my church I would be very very happy

So you are saying discrimination is OK for some minorities

But again you are saying


straw man fallacy not all who are discriminated are equal..

Again the US constitution says you are wrong and all are equal whether you like them or not

 

[Shane Roach]

Take it up with New Jersey.

I don't exactly agree with the law, but one must follow the law of hte land. "Render unto Caesar" right?

Citizens also have a right to demand their rights as citizens. Christians have a right to be soldiers, and the Bible supports that as well.

When this nation rebelled against England, it was perfectly acceptable to be in the rebel forces.

If this government is going to begin to violate the Constitution, it essentially abdicates its authority. No one owes it anything. On the other hand, no Christian should be forced by any moral argument to participate in rebellion either. So you could have honest Christians on both sides of a war.

Sad, but there you have it.

 

[Philothei]

Greedy?

No, the tax code is unfair. This is how things like this get crammed down people's throats. Tax code should not be allowed to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property, especially in terms of a religious institution.

That is where the law should be more strict and clear you either have the church be in control over its property or the state... The State cannot dictate what the rights of the church are....
And then we will get into the "giving rights for homesexuals" to be married to different churches as they "by state law" would be seen as "discrimination" not to perform such marriages...How about that as infringing the freedom of religion in the western culture ?

 

[b&wpac4]

Citizens also have a right to demand their rights as citizens. Christians have a right to be soldiers, and the Bible supports that as well.

When this nation rebelled against England, it was perfectly acceptable to be in the rebel forces.

If this government is going to begin to violate the Constitution, it essentially abdicates its authority. No one owes it anything. On the other hand, no Christian should be forced by any moral argument to participate in rebellion either. So you could have honest Christians on both sides of a war.

Sad, but there you have it.

Well, honestly, the NJ legislature came up with this. Can't even blame this one on activist judges. It was the representatives of the people.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Do you think it is okay to answer my question with another question is okay?"

The very fact that you refuse to answer is itself an answer

If you answer me why it is okay to "indocrininize" my child into a homosexual lifestyle is okay then I will answer your question. Simple.

Please prove that this “indoctrination” is real

 

[David Brider]

Actually it does mean you will be less fit than a normal family because there is no way for the child to see a heterosexual relationship modeled.

The child will almost certainly see heterosexual relationships modelled, just not in the home in which he/she grows up.

David.

 

[Shane Roach]

Again the US constitution says you are wrong and all are equal whether you like them or not

That's right, all behaviors are able to be regulated, but you cannot hold one set of people to one set of behaviors and another set to a different set of rules.

That is the whole point of civil rights. Everyone is required to act and behave the same. No one is allowed to be forced to act subserviently. But the law is still the law.