"Sodom and Gomorah" Tories /Lib Dems

[mindlight]

BBC News - MP-by-MP: Gay marriage vote

None of us are perfect but then not all of us rule nations. The decision to approve gay marriage is in my view a catastrophe for the UK on the scale of the 1967 abortion act and fast track divorce reform. It shows a contempt for the things of God. God calls us to pray for those in authority for the sake of the common good. But this vote was not for the common good and God can raise up alternate people to replace those who have shown such foolishness.

So I have prepared a hit list of "Sodom and Gomorrah" Tories and Lib Dems- excluding Iain Duncan Smith because despite his stupidity on the day I still believe his heart is right. Please assist me in praying these guys out of office now or better into repentance. Since this was led from the top it is in the cabinet that the major fault lies:

David Cameron
William Hague
George Osborne
Nick Clegg
Danny Alexander
Vince Cable
Chris Grayling
Eric Pickles
Michael Gove
Jeremy Hunt
Andrew Lansley
Theresa May
Justine Greening
Michael Moore
Ed Davey
Patrik McLoughlin
Maria Miller
Theresa Villiers
Francis Maude
Grant Shapps

AND
Lynn Featherstone

Please pray for the following cabinet ministers who are probably being persecuted for their convictions right now:

Owen Patterson
Phillip Hammond
David Jones
Justin Greening

And
Liam Fox
Adam Afriyie

Also pray for repentance by
Iain Duncan Smith

PLEASE NOTE: I may edit this list if I missed or misplaced names or if subsequent voting patterns (e.g. 3rd Reading) and actions indicate real repentance later.

 

[Oafman]

excluding Iain Duncan Smith because despite his stupidity on the day I still believe his heart is right.

Judging by his politics, his heart is anything but 'right'.

Otherwise, I wholeheartedly approve of this endeavour.

 

[mindlight]

Otherwise, I wholeheartedly approve of this endeavour.

Of course even though the value and power of prayer is not always obvious to atheists and you have no political axe to grind ;-)

 

[BurningKnight]

You forgot Lynn Featherstone!

 

[mindlight]

You forgot Lynn Featherstone!

She is not in the cabinet, though as Equalities minister between 2010-2012 she seems to have initiated this rubbish. She is not the decision maker here. But her passion as a feminist divorcee seems to be in part a hatred of men or at least a certain type of man. This equality thing is a religion to her and she reads as being a little deranged about it to me. But she is in a party that is likely to be severely mauled in the next election anyway.
Her majority in her constituency is not brilliant and that could be quickly overturned by just a few voters switching sides in Hornsey and Wood Green. Given the loss of support for the Lib Dems and also the fact she supported this gay marriage thing and could be easily portrayed by her opponents as some kind of politically correct fanatic there is a sizeable number who could be persuaded to vote against her. With a little faith it is not impossible to envisage her losing her seat next election if God is willing. Given her politics that would be a desirable outcome.

OK she's not that important but she makes the list cause she initiated this evil

 

[mindlight]

There is probably a European root to this legislation although also the victory of Obama in the Whitehouse also affirmed the policy. It is interesting that France and the UK both took actions at the same time.

Cranmer: Is the EU behind Cameron's gay-marriage conviction?

 

[Genersis]

BBC News - MP-by-MP: Gay marriage vote

None of us are perfect but then not all of us rule nations. The decision to approve gay marriage is in my view a catastrophy for the UK on the scale of the 1967 abortion act and fast track divorce reform. It shows a contempt for the things of God. God calls us to pray for those in authority for the sake of the common good. But this vote was not for the common good and God can raise up alternate people to replace those who have shown such foolishness.
...

"Catastrophe"? Not really.
Not in the slightest.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hey, guess what? There's people that live in the UK that don't believe your God exists, and don't subscribe to your religion.

Imposing your religious or moral views upon them is not exactly the hallmark of a free society. If you don't want to marry a man, then don't. We've had legalized gay marriage here in Canada for over a decade, and I won't ever be marrying a man either.

However those that happen to be in loving same sex relationships should have the freedom to marry their partners, as you or I have a choice to marry a girlfriend (assuming she accepts the proposal of course).

That's called equality. You have no right to impose your religious views on others, so keep your mouth shut in matters that don't apply to you.

 

[mindlight]

Hey, guess what? There's people that live in the UK that don't believe your God exists, and don't subscribe to your religion.

Imposing your religious or moral views upon them is not exactly the hallmark of a free society. If you don't want to marry a man, then don't. We've had legalized gay marriage here in Canada for over a decade, and I won't ever be marrying a man either.

However those that happen to be in loving same sex relationships should have the freedom to marry their partners, as you or I have a choice to marry a girlfriend (assuming she accepts the proposal of course).

That's called equality. You have no right to impose your religious views on others, so keep your mouth shut in matters that don't apply to you.

Homosexuals already had equality. They could marry anyone of the opposite sex that they chose as could any hetrosexual. They also had all the standard contract, employment etc rights of hetrosexuals.

What this gay marriage law suggests is that there is an equivalence between marriage and gay relationships. There is not- its like comparing chalk and cheese.

However even if one says well that's their business let them get on with it if they wish then the more serious matter of freedom of religion is revealed as the key issue here. This law and the others that have been spawned as a result of European equality idolatry most clearly mark an erosion of effective religious freedoms for Christians and Muslims and people of most religions in fact that have issues with homosexual practice and cannot in good conscience affirm it. Christians who refuse to marry or counsel gay couples have already been fired. Hoteliers who do not particularly want gay couples sleeping in their beds are not allowed to ask them to go elsewhere. Catholic adoption agencies that cannot in good conscience recommend a gay couple as adoptive parents for an orphan in their care may lose their charitable status if they fail to comply.

I respect your freedom to be an atheist even though I think this is an incredibly foolish position to hold. By supporting this legislation you are effectively outlawing my freedoms as a Christian to live according to my conscience. If you think that's fair then your handle of justice has clearly been lost and I put it to you that you do not really believe in freedom of religion.

 

[Oafman]

Homosexuals already had equality. They could marry anyone of the opposite sex that they chose as could any hetrosexual.

Could they marry the person they love, and want to spend the rest of their life with?

However even if one says well that's their business let them get on with it if they wish then the more serious matter of freedom of religion is revealed as the key issue here. This law and the others that have been spawned as a result of European equality idolatry most clearly mark an erosion of effective religious freedoms for Christians and Muslims and people of most religions in fact that have issues with homosexual practice and cannot in good conscience affirm it.

This law will increase religious freedom. It will allow those religions who have been lobbying to be allowed to marry their gay members to do so (eg Quakers, some synagogues).

Christians who refuse to marry or counsel gay couples have already been fired. Hoteliers who do not particularly want gay couples sleeping in their beds are not allowed to ask them to go elsewhere. Catholic adoption agencies that cannot in good conscience recommend a gay couple as adoptive parents for an orphan in their care may lose their charitable status if they fail to comply.

Don't muddy the waters, these are separate issues. And by the way, the examples you give are unquestionably discriminatory.

By supporting this legislation you are effectively outlawing my freedoms as a Christian to live according to my conscience. If you think that's fair then your handle of justice has clearly been lost and I put it to you that you do not really believe in freedom of religion.

How is this outlawing your freedoms? How does it affect you? Churches can't be forced to marry gays. I've already outlined why this law will increase religious freedom. Tell me how you believe it restricts yours.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Homosexuals already had equality. They could marry anyone of the opposite sex that they chose as could any hetrosexual. They also had all the standard contract, employment etc rights of hetrosexuals.

You had the right to marry a partner you loved, they did not. Gender doesn't enter into the equation, that is not equality.

What this gay marriage law suggests is that there is an equivalence between marriage and gay relationships. There is not- its like comparing chalk and cheese.

Actually, they are equivalent... In what way are they not?

However even if one says well that's their business let them get on with it if they wish then the more serious matter of freedom of religion is revealed as the key issue here. This law and the others that have been spawned as a result of European equality idolatry most clearly mark an erosion of effective religious freedoms for Christians and Muslims and people of most religions in fact that have issues with homosexual practice and cannot in good conscience affirm it.

Important point: Religious freedom does not mean you have the freedom to oppress people who do not follow your religion.

You have the freedom to have whatever religious belief you want. That applies to you, and to you only. Someone who does not believe, or care about your religion also has that freedom.

The fact your religion opposes gay marriage is fine. It is free to do so. People are free to remain within that religion and not practice, or condemn homosexuality, or they are free to leave if they feel the religion is not in line with their beliefs.

However, people who are not in your religion you have no control over, and it is not a violation of your religious freedom should two guys get to marry. It would be a violation of your religious freedom if the governemnt imposed on your church that they must marry gays when it goes against your churches doctrine.

Christians who refuse to marry or counsel gay couples have already been fired.

Depending where they are, this could be a violation or not. If these Christians are in a church which is against gay marriage, and they get fired for not counselling or marrying gays, that is a violation of religious freedom.

If this Christian is a justice of the peace, tasked with upholding the laws of the land and he refuses to marry a gay couple, that is absolutely a firing offence. He is a representative of the government, which is religioulsy neutral. He took the job knowing the job may conflict with his personal religious beliefs, and therefore refusal do do that job on those grounds is unacceptable. As a government representative, he can show no favouritism one way or the other.

Hoteliers who do not particularly want gay couples sleeping in their beds are not allowed to ask them to go elsewhere.

And what's wrong with that? That's in line with anti-discrimination laws. It's the same reason why they can't put signs up that say "No Blacks Allowed" anymore either.

Catholic adoption agencies that cannot in good conscience recommend a gay couple as adoptive parents for an orphan in their care may lose their charitable status if they fail to comply.

As they should. A charitable status is granted by the government, and you have to meet certain criteria to achieve that status.

Active discrimination like that is something that will make an organization ineligible. In short, if they want special status which is provided by the government, they need to follow the government's rules.

They are not entitled to that status just because they are a church, it's a secular status they are applying for, and they have to follow all the other regulations any other charity would have to.

I respect your freedom to be an atheist even though I think this is an incredibly foolish position to hold. By supporting this legislation you are effectively outlawing my freedoms as a Christian to live according to my conscience.

Which is ridiculous. You have the freedom to not marry a man. This is not an infringement on your freedoms at all. In fact, your freedoms have expanded, as you now have the right to marry not only a woman, but anyone you want to. It's completely up to you who you want to marry.

The problem is, you are of the mindset that taking away your ability to limit the freedoms of others is an infringement on your freedoms. It's not, and don't try to pretend it is.

If you think that's fair then your handle of justice has clearly been lost and I put it to you that you do not really believe in freedom of religion.

And I'd argue back that you don't understand what freedom of religion is.

If you are beating someone over the head with a stick, and I take your stick away, I am not infringing on your rights or freedoms. Likewise if you are trying to oppress people who don't accept your religion, and you lose the ability to oppress those people, that is also not an infringement on your rights or freedoms.

But rather than just asserting that stuff, we can demonstrate it here's how:

Please demonstrate to me one freedom or right you no longer possess that you did possess prior to the passage of the gay marriage act.

In other words, if Elton John and his partner decide to tie the knot in the UK, how on earth does that impact upon your life at all?

 

[mindlight]

You had the right to marry a partner you loved, they did not. Gender doesn't enter into the equation, that is not equality.

There is no such thing as gay marriage so there is no equivalence.

Actually, they are equivalent... In what way are they not?

The one is normal and the other reserves you a place in hell. The one is potentially procreative and the other is someone sleeping with someone who looks very much like oneself.

Important point: Religious freedom does not mean you have the freedom to oppress people who do not follow your religion.

This is not about oppression but rather about the freedom to worship God in a way that does not defile a church or the people attending it.

You have the freedom to have whatever religious belief you want. That applies to you, and to you only. Someone who does not believe, or care about your religion also has that freedom.

This is the theory but in practice the beliefs of conservative Evangelicals like myself are required to be limited to a narrowly defined private sphere and are excluded from the public square where gays can flaunt their relationships.

The fact your religion opposes gay marriage is fine. It is free to do so. People are free to remain within that religion and not practice, or condemn homosexuality, or they are free to leave if they feel the religion is not in line with their beliefs.
However, people who are not in your religion you have no control over, and it is not a violation of your religious freedom should two guys get to marry. It would be a violation of your religious freedom if the governemnt imposed on your church that they must marry gays when it goes against your churches doctrine.

Depending where they are, this could be a violation or not. If these Christians are in a church which is against gay marriage, and they get fired for not counselling or marrying gays, that is a violation of religious freedom.

If this Christian is a justice of the peace, tasked with upholding the laws of the land and he refuses to marry a gay couple, that is absolutely a firing offence. He is a representative of the government, which is religioulsy neutral. He took the job knowing the job may conflict with his personal religious beliefs, and therefore refusal do do that job on those grounds is unacceptable. As a government representative, he can show no favouritism one way or the other.

And what's wrong with that? That's in line with anti-discrimination laws. It's the same reason why they can't put signs up that say "No Blacks Allowed" anymore either.

As they should. A charitable status is granted by the government, and you have to meet certain criteria to achieve that status.

Active discrimination like that is something that will make an organization ineligible. In short, if they want special status which is provided by the government, they need to follow the government's rules.

They are not entitled to that status just because they are a church, it's a secular status they are applying for, and they have to follow all the other regulations any other charity would have to.

So in practice sexual identity is a more important legal factor than ones right to hold religious beliefs. In other words people who approve of gay lifestyles have more scope to exercise their religious freedoms than those who do not.

Which is ridiculous. You have the freedom to not marry a man. This is not an infringement on your freedoms at all. In fact, your freedoms have expanded, as you now have the right to marry not only a woman, but anyone you want to. It's completely up to you who you want to marry.

Christian marriage is not only a commitment between 2 people it is also a commitment to God. A gay contract cannot be a commitment to God because God detests homosexual practices. So again there is no equivalence between gay relationships and marriage and especially no moral equality between the 2. Your view of freedom is actually one of licence not freedom which allows me to fulfill my created potential as one made in the image of God and called to worship Him.

The problem is, you are of the mindset that taking away your ability to limit the freedoms of others is an infringement on your freedoms. It's not, and don't try to pretend it is.

And I'd argue back that you don't understand what freedom of religion is.

If you are beating someone over the head with a stick, and I take your stick away, I am not infringing on your rights or freedoms. Likewise if you are trying to oppress people who don't accept your religion, and you lose the ability to oppress those people, that is also not an infringement on your rights or freedoms.

You are not talking about freedom you are talking about a perverse form of licence. Part of the purpose of the law is to limit the possibilities of perversity not to entrench and affirm a lie.

But rather than just asserting that stuff, we can demonstrate it here's how:

Please demonstrate to me one freedom or right you no longer possess that you did possess prior to the passage of the gay marriage act.

In other words, if Elton John and his partner decide to tie the knot in the UK, how on earth does that impact upon your life at all?

They defile and cheapen the concept of marriage , they affirm a lie built into the legal code. They undermine the legitimacy of the rule of law by demonstrating the law to be in practice a perverse lie. They establish a precedent about gay relationships which undermines the job security of Christian registrars, hoteliers, counsellors, charities, nurses, teachers etc etc by insisting that their relationship should be affirmed at the same level as a hetrosexual marriage.

Ultimately many Christian organisations will be taken over by these people e.g. the Quakers and their members either forced to accept their organisations rulings or leave churches that their families have worshipped in for generations.

This policy change marks the fruit of an ammoral political class, that has no absolute convictions and frowns on those that do and that plays with images about themselves for their own advantage without any care for the content of the messages they communicate. A class that has dominated for the last 20 years. Either this class of people are removed or Britain , indeed Europe commits moral suicide with all the accompanying curses on its future peace and prosperity.

 

[mindlight]

Could they marry the person they love, and want to spend the rest of their life with?

This law will increase religious freedom. It will allow those religions who have been lobbying to be allowed to marry their gay members to do so (eg Quakers, some synagogues).

Don't muddy the waters, these are separate issues. And by the way, the examples you give are unquestionably discriminatory.

How is this outlawing your freedoms? How does it affect you? Churches can't be forced to marry gays. I've already outlined why this law will increase religious freedom. Tell me how you believe it restricts yours.

Can murderers be affirmed as killers can thieves be affirmed for stealing? The law is meant to restrain them and not to affirm them. This is what we are talking about here. This is no longer a matter of a private contract or arrangements between consenting adults- it has entered the public square as a dominant principle that sexual equality is more important than reliigous freedom of conscience. The law is meant to restrain evil not to affirm it but here in the examples shared it is affirming the very forces that will destroy society in the long run.

No these are not examples of discrimination they are examples of the law penalising Christians for being Christians.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is no such thing as gay marriage so there is no equivalence.

Actually, there is... I know a couple gay people who are married.

The one is normal and the other reserves you a place in hell. The one is potentially procreative and the other is someone sleeping with someone who looks very much like oneself.

And why does your personal religious beliefs matter in this regard? You have no right to impose them upon others. Apart from that, hell doesn't exist.

Lastly, not all heterosexual sex is potentially procreative either. For example, women in menopause, or infertile couples. Are you saying those people should not have the right to marry or have sex?

This is not about oppression but rather about the freedom to worship God in a way that does not defile a church or the people attending it.

You have every right and all the freedom in the world to worship your god, and attend your church in a non-defiled manner.

However, you do not have the right to impose what your church says, on people that do not attend your church, or believe in your religion.

This is the theory but in practice the beliefs of conservative Evangelicals like myself are required to be limited to a narrowly defined private sphere and are excluded from the public square where gays can flaunt their relationships.

What's your point? You still have no right to impose your beliefs upon them. You can believe whatever you want to, but you can't force those beliefs on others.

So in practice sexual identity is a more important legal factor than ones right to hold religious beliefs. In other words people who approve of gay lifestyles have more scope to exercise their religious freedoms than those who do not.

I don't see how you arrived at this argument. How does a gay marriage in any way violate your rights to hold a belief, attend a particular church or worship whatever god you want?

When the gay marriage bill passed, did you suddenly lose the freedom to belong to your religion or have your personal beliefs? Of course not, and trying to argue that it somehow violated your rights is absurd. If you don't want to marry another man, then don't. It's not being forced upon you... in fact if you are straight, then this issue should be completely irrelevant to you. It doesn't concern you at all.

Christian marriage is not only a commitment between 2 people it is also a commitment to God. A gay contract cannot be a commitment to God because God detests homosexual practices. So again there is no equivalence between gay relationships and marriage and especially no moral equality between the 2. Your view of freedom is actually one of licence not freedom which allows me to fulfill my created potential as one made in the image of God and called to worship Him.

And who says they are going to be married in a Christian Church? You are aware that justices of the peace, among other religions also marry people, right? And the institution of marriage far predates the founding of Christianity and Judaism.

If your church doesn't want to marry gays, that's their right. However what your churches marriage policy is, should have no bearing whatsoever on what a justice of the peace down at town hall can do.

You are not talking about freedom you are talking about a perverse form of licence. Part of the purpose of the law is to limit the possibilities of perversity not to entrench and affirm a lie.

And what perversity and lie are you referring to?

They defile and cheapen the concept of marriage , they affirm a lie built into the legal code. They undermine the legitimacy of the rule of law by demonstrating the law to be in practice a perverse lie. They establish a precedent about gay relationships which undermines the job security of Christian registrars, hoteliers, counsellors, charities, nurses, teachers etc etc by insisting that their relationship should be affirmed at the same level as a hetrosexual marriage.

Again, your religion is irrelevant when secular marriage is considered. Your church can marry whoever they want to. However, the rule of law is completely detached from the church (Separation of Church and State). They can be married in a non-religious setting, or in a church which has no issue with gay marriages. This issue does not apply to your church at all, it can still have whatever policy it wants to.

Ultimately many Christian organisations will be taken over by these people e.g. the Quakers and their members either forced to accept their organisations rulings or leave churches that their families have worshipped in for generations.

If the policies of your church turns off people, and they leave as a result, that's a problem between your church and it's members. I couldn't care less about it as that does not concern me.

This policy change marks the fruit of an ammoral political class, that has no absolute convictions and frowns on those that do and that plays with images about themselves for their own advantage without any care for the content of the messages they communicate. A class that has dominated for the last 20 years. Either this class of people are removed or Britain , indeed Europe commits moral suicide with all the accompanying curses on its future peace and prosperity.

The problem is your absolute convictions are not moral. You are trying to impose upon other people your personal beliefs, which is at the very least bullying and certainly oppressive.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

However those that happen to be in loving same sex relationships should have the freedom to marry their partners, as you or I have a choice to marry a girlfriend (assuming she accepts the proposal of course).

That's called equality. You have no right to impose your religious views on others, so keep your mouth shut in matters that don't apply to you.

How about those in "loving polygamous relationships" or "loving incestuous relationships"* ? Do your staments above apply there also, or is that somehow different, because those people haven't had popular media depicting them as "cool" over the past decades?




*NB: Incest doesn't necessarily = pedophilia. I'm not talking about the latter, of course! Pedophilia is always = rape, and has no place in this discussion

 

[Dave Ellis]

Can murderers be affirmed as killers can thieves be affirmed for stealing? The law is meant to restrain them and not to affirm them. This is what we are talking about here. This is no longer a matter of a private contract or arrangements between consenting adults- it has entered the public square as a dominant principle that sexual equality is more important than reliigous freedom of conscience. The law is meant to restrain evil not to affirm it but here in the examples shared it is affirming the very forces that will destroy society in the long run.

This law in no way impacts your religious freedom. You can still believe and worship however you want to.

No these are not examples of discrimination they are examples of the law penalising Christians for being Christians.

OK then, give me one clear cut example of how you have lost a right or been penalized because two guys who are already living together in a long term relationship want to get married.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How about those in "loving polygamous relationships" or "loving incestuous relationships"* ? Do your staments above apply there also, or is that somehow different, because those people haven't had popular media depicting them as "cool" over the past decades?




*NB: Incest doesn't necessarily = pedophilia. I'm not talking about the latter, of course! Pedophilia is always = rape, and has no place in this discussion

Well, if you're a Christian I assume you have no problems with polygamy, as it was an acceptable form of marriage in the Bible.

As for incest, it is outlawed because of demonstrable harm. There is a reasonable chance a baby born out of incest will suffer genetic problems.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Well, if you're a Christian I assume you have no problems with polygamy, as it was an acceptable form of marriage in the Bible.

1: Don't avoid the question. Answer it, please: Does your statements above also apply to polygamous relationships, or are they not PC enough?

2: Please tell me where either a Prophet, or God Himself, ever says: "Go marry more than one person at a time".....
I'll wait

As for incest, it is outlawed because of demonstrable harm. There is a reasonable chance a baby born out of incest will suffer genetic problems.

Ahh....so demonstrable harm IS a rubber-term, and can also be applied to other factors than someone getting punched down...
Well, no one's telling them to not use protection. You cannot take a hypothetical scenario and use that to deny someone a right they have. There's a risk of someone whose parents were alcoholics, developing a similar problem. Should those people be prevented from marriage, because alcoholism is bad for the child (unborn and otherwise)?

Nice try, but it isn't working. There isn't a single reason for allowing "gay marriage" that cannot also be used regarding polygamy and incest.

 

[Dave Ellis]

1: Don't avoid the question. Answer it, please: Does your statements above also apply to polygamous relationships, or are they not PC enough?

Honestly I have no opinion on the matter right now. On one hand, if it's between consenting adults and everyone knows what's going on, I can see a case being made for it... however, it also opens the door to potential situations of abuse, and other complications from a legal standpoint.

I'd have to look into it more in depth and hear arguments from both sides, however since it's never really been a seriously proposed idea, I've never cared all that much about it.

2: Please tell me where either a Prophet, or God Himself, ever says: "Go marry more than one person at a time".....
I'll wait

Well, here's an example of God giving King David multiple wives.

Samuel 12:7-8 - And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Here's a number of other biblical passages that talk of polygamous situations, some of them involving prophets themselves in polygamous marriages: What the Bible says about polygamy

Keep in mind, polygamy was fairly commonplace in ancient Israel, especially before the Babylonian exile. So, it's not surprising to see passages like these.

Ahh....so demonstrable harm IS a rubber-term, and can also be applied to other factors than someone getting punched down...
Well, no one's telling them to not use protection. You cannot take a hypothetical scenario and use that to deny someone a right they have. There's a risk of someone whose parents were alcoholics, developing a similar problem. Should those people be prevented from marriage, because alcoholism is bad for the child (unborn and otherwise)?

If a parent is a severe alcoholic, the authorities do step in for the interests of the child. And using protection, while largely effective is not a failsafe against pregnancy. Should a child be born, there's decent odds there will be problems. Therefore for the good of the offspring incest is not permitted.

Nice try, but it isn't working. There isn't a single reason for allowing "gay marriage" that cannot also be used regarding polygamy and incest.

Polygamy, perhaps, but perhaps not. There's valid arguments on both sides. Incest, you're flat out wrong. There are unnecessary risks involved with incestuous babies, which is a valid reason for forbidding incest.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Honestly I have no opinion on the matter right now. On one hand, if it's between consenting adults and everyone knows what's going on, I can see a case being made for it... however, it also opens the door to potential situations of abuse, and other complications from a legal standpoint.

If it's between consenting adults, it isn't abuse.
Sure, there could be abusive situations, but this is the case in ANY relationship, and therefore nonapplicable.
It's an open and shut case - 1/1 parallel with the case about homophilia.

Well, here's an example of God giving King David multiple wives.

Samuel 12:7-8 - And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Now, this is something we can use, instead of the "It's mentioned, therefore God approves of it!"-nonsense that so many others reply with.
What are these verses saying? That David had multiple wives, and that God sanctioned and blessed this?
No.
They're saying that everything that was Saul's, was now David's. His "house" (if you can call a King's palace a "house") and the household, which included Saul's many wives. This form of listing is very common in Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew, anyway), and its meaning is, as mentioned: "Everything".
You cannot conclude from this, that David then proceeded to have many wives, and that this was according to God's will.

Here's a number of other biblical passages that talk of polygamous situations, some of them involving prophets themselves in polygamous marriages: What the Bible says about polygamy

ohgodwhy.jpg.
I spoke too soon above - you DID feel the need to add a nonsensical copy-pasted list.
You will note, that God's approval and blessing is never over these arrangements. They're listed, because they happened, but never once is there a "And the Lord saw that is was good"-type of sentence.
In much the same way as slavery, it was taken as a fact of life, and thus tolerated, but not encouraged. Especially not in the NT - where Jesus ( = God) settles the issue once and for all.
Finally, the list just proves how moronical it is, by adding the story of the bridesmaids. Does the one who made this list not know that those "virgins" were NOT all going to be married to the groom??? They were invited as guests to the wedding, but missed their hour.

If a parent is a severe alcoholic, the authorities do step in for the interests of the child.

In most cases, yes, thank God.
However, that wasn't my point. My point was, that the authorities do not say: "Your parents were alcoholics, so there's a chance you might become one too. Therefore, you can't get married or have children.". The point was, that your "There are risks" is no different from in normal marriages that go sour.

And using protection, while largely effective is not a failsafe against pregnancy.

Fundamentally irrelevant, however I was the one who brought that up, so I'll accept blame for that. However:

Should a child be born, there's decent odds there will be problems. Therefore for the good of the offspring incest is not permitted.

"Should a child be born to parents whose parents were alcoholics/drug addicts, there's decent odds there will be problems. Therefore for the good of the offspring those people should not be permitted to marry".

Would you agree or disagree with the above sentence, and if not - please demonstrate how it's fundamentally different from your own.

Polygamy, perhaps, but perhaps not. There's valid arguments on both sides.

The case is exactly the same as with homophilia.

Incest, you're flat out wrong. There are unnecessary risks involved with incestuous babies, which is a valid reason for forbidding incest.

See above.