Today's Ruling

[NothingIsImpossible]

Incest is illegal.

For now. This whole thing opens the doors for anything.

 

[Hetta]

For now. This whole thing opens the doors for anything.

No it doesn't.

 

[sdmsanjose]

1. Why should the bible believing Christians “BUTT OUT” when the opposing view people and LGBT groups do NOT butt out and do the same thing?
Does the Bible believing Christian have the same right as the LBGT?

By Armoured
What, specifically, do you think LGBT people should be "butting out" from?

My Posts have nothing to do with telling the LGBT to “butt out”. My point is that the Christians have the right to NOT “Butt out”. Please read my post more carefully.

 

[LinkH]

Incest is illegal.

Adult practicers of incest, I've read, aren't prosecuted in New Jersey. If you think incest laws will hold up after the Supreme Court decision, do you? If there is a constitutional right to marry who you love, why would those with an incestuous orientation be discriminated against? There is already talk of making pedophilia an orientation. My guess is incest will be approved first. A judge already decided in favor of a polygamist before the recent Supreme Court decision.

Supposing incest were legal, do you think would it be wrong for two homosexual brothers to marry each other? They aren't going to have each other's babies.

 

[Hetta]

Adult practicers of incest, I've read, aren't prosecuted in New Jersey. If you think incest laws will hold up after the Supreme Court decision, do you? If there is a constitutional right to marry who you love, why would those with an incestuous orientation be discriminated against? There is already talk of making pedophilia an orientation. My guess is incest will be approved first. A judge already decided in favor of a polygamist before the recent Supreme Court decision.

Supposing incest were legal, do you think would it be wrong for two homosexual brothers to marry each other? They aren't going to have each other's babies.

I'm not going to live my life on maybe's. It's pointless.

"There is already talk of making pedophilia an orientation" - talk by pedophiles on the one hand and nutty right wing conspiracist Christians on the other. It's not going to happen.

Polygamy is consenting adults. It wouldn't work for me but it is biblical.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Well there are lots of things that people used to say wouldn't happen or that wouldn't open the doors for. And they all were wrong too. As the world goes on it will grow darker and more things we never thought would happen will happen.

 

[DZoolander]

I guess I must have a different definition of "darker" - because I do not see giving gays now the ability to inherit property the same way that I can, visit their loved one in the hospital in the same way I can, etc etc etc...as being a step toward "darkness". Rather - to me it's just basic human compassion.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Adult practicers of incest, I've read, aren't prosecuted in New Jersey. If you think incest laws will hold up after the Supreme Court decision, do you? If there is a constitutional right to marry who you love, why would those with an incestuous orientation be discriminated against? There is already talk of making pedophilia an orientation. My guess is incest will be approved first. A judge already decided in favor of a polygamist before the recent Supreme Court decision.

Supposing incest were legal, do you think would it be wrong for two homosexual brothers to marry each other? They aren't going to have each other's babies.

LinkH...spending a few minutes with Google might lead to finding out facts... here's an article explaining the New Jersey Law... http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/incest_qa_daughter_plans_to_marry_dad.html

From the article "However, New Jersey law still bars a person from marrying his or her parent or child, brother or sister, niece or nephew, or aunt or uncle. Any such marriage would be considered void. The 18-year-old who spoke to New York magazine said she doesn't plan to make the "marriage" legally binding — only to live as a married couple."

So...now that the TRUTH has been expressed...any more fussing about a "slippery slope"?

 

[Armoured]

Polygamy is consenting adults. It wouldn't work for me but it is biblical.

Of course, all this slippery slope nonsense rather fails to take into account that polygamy technically remaining illegal, doesn't actually stop anyone so inclined from living in a polygamy-like situation, just without civil recognition.

 

[LinkH]

"There is already talk of making pedophilia an orientation" - talk by pedophiles on the one hand and nutty right wing conspiracist Christians on the other. It's not going to happen.

Talk from psychologists. The LGBT's have laid the legal framework for it.

 

[LinkH]

LinkH...spending a few minutes with Google might lead to finding out facts... here's an article explaining the New Jersey Law... http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/incest_qa_daughter_plans_to_marry_dad.html

From the article "However, New Jersey law still bars a person from marrying his or her parent or child, brother or sister, niece or nephew, or aunt or uncle. Any such marriage would be considered void. The 18-year-old who spoke to New York magazine said she doesn't plan to make the "marriage" legally binding — only to live as a married couple."

So...now that the TRUTH has been expressed...any more fussing about a "slippery slope"?

Nothing you posted here disproved my post which you quoted.

 

[LinkH]

I guess I must have a different definition of "darker" - because I do not see giving gays now the ability to inherit property the same way that I can, visit their loved one in the hospital in the same way I can, etc etc etc...as being a step toward "darkness". Rather - to me it's just basic human compassion.

Hospitals should allow patients to specify who to visit them. Marriage doesn't have to be redefined for that. Giving homosexuals equal rights to adopting children and subjecting children to be raised in homosexual homes is definitely 'dark.' Preventing Christians who don't believe in gay rights from being foster parents, as has happened in the UK, and allowing homosexuals to be foster parents is dark.

 

[Armoured]

Talk from psychologists. The LGBT's have laid the legal framework for it.

Paedophilia is already an orientation. However, paedophile activity can never be legal so long as consent is required. It's a dead horse the anti-homosexual types really need to stop flogging.

 

[Armoured]

Hospitals should allow patients to specify who to visit them. Marriage doesn't have to be redefined for that. Giving homosexuals equal rights to adopting children and subjecting children to be raised in homosexual homes is definitely 'dark.' Preventing Christians who don't believe in gay rights from being foster parents, as has happened in the UK, and allowing homosexuals to be foster parents is dark.

What's "dark" about it? Specifically?

 

[DZoolander]

Hospitals should allow patients to specify who to visit them. Marriage doesn't have to be redefined for that. Giving homosexuals equal rights to adopting children and subjecting children to be raised in homosexual homes is definitely 'dark.' Preventing Christians who don't believe in gay rights from being foster parents, as has happened in the UK, and allowing homosexuals to be foster parents is dark.

Like I said in my earlier post - while it's true that MOST of the legal privileges that are obtained via marriage could be also obtained by gays through separate legal actions (the setting up of various trusts for financial matters, assigning medical power of attorney for others, etc etc etc) - my gut reaction is "Why put them through all of that hassle if it all can be easily obtained my just recognizing their unions?" (in other words - allow them to call themselves and be recognized as "married" by the state)

I don't care about the word that much - and that's pretty much all people are fighting about. So long as nobody is forcing churches to marry them - who cares what they call themselves and or what the secular gov't recognizes them as? They might as well call themselves martians for all I care. If I can obtain all of those privileges and legal recognition simply by virtue of having stumbled up to an altar and saying two words (I do) - then it should be just as easy for them IMHO.

As for that case in England - do you know any of the specifics/backstory of that? I'm interested in how it played out. The idea that they've been denied simply because "they don't support gay rights" just doesn't sound right to me.

I think it's fair to say that MOST Christians don't support gay rights. Yet - we don't hear about Christians across the board over there being banned from adopting...so it makes me wonder just what we're talking about. I mean - you have your normal anti-gay stuff from Christians that you see on FB/etc - then you have your Westboro Baptist Church kind of anti-gay stuff.

The fact that the Gov't over there even *knew* that they were anti-gay and/or was prepared to take a stand on it makes me wonder just where on that spectrum those people fall. I could totally understand why a Gov't might look at some Westboro type people and go "Hmmm, maybe putting a baby into that mix wouldn't be such a healthy thing to do."

So - makes me wonder.

 

[Hetta]

Talk from psychologists. The LGBT's have laid the legal framework for it.

You talk as though LGBT's have set out to make pedophilia legal, which is nonsense. LGBT parents do not wish to have their children raped. As Armored said, pedophilia is recognized as an orientation but it's not legal, and there is no pending legislation to make pedophilia legal. What consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's business, but nobody other than the pedophilia underground organizations are seeking to involve children in adult activities. And nobody else ever will. I'm sure they can find a lawyer to argue their case, but public revulsion and the drive to protect children from rape will always be 100% against adult/child sex. You may as well say that rapists would like to make rape legal. Of course they would. I'm sure that murderers would like to make murder legal too. However, assault against individuals is not about to become legal, and adult/child sex is assault. You would have to lower the age of consent to about 5 and there is nobody out there who is willing to do that because the one thing that (normal) people are repulsed by, is the idea of their child being assaulted.

 

[DZoolander]

...and just to cut this off at the pass...

Before anyone says "Well people once found homosexual sex revolting" - while that is true - what people then started doing is asking "Why do I find it revolting? Why do I care enough that I'm going to deny them civil recognition of their unions?"

It's the fact that people asked that question - and really found no reason other than "This passage in the Bible says so" - that public attitudes changed. There are plenty of good and authentic arguments you can make about why child rape/child sex is wrong, immoral, exploitative and extremely harmful to the individual. The same really can't be said about two adults of the same sex deciding they want to be together as a couple.

 

[Hetta]

...and just to cut this off at the pass...

Before anyone says "Well people once found homosexual sex revolting" - while that is true - what people then started doing is asking "Why do I find it revolting? Why do I care enough that I'm going to deny them civil recognition of their unions?"

It's the fact that people asked that question - and really found no reason other than "This passage in the Bible says so" - that public attitudes changed. There are plenty of good and authentic arguments you can make about why child rape/child sex is wrong, immoral, exploitative and extremely harmful to the individual. The same really can't be said about two adults of the same sex deciding they want to be together as a couple.

People still do find the idea of homosexual sex revolting, but the thing is that I find the "imagining" of any kind of sex fairly revolting - other than the sex I'm having myself (obviously). So my general advice to those people is - don't think about it. I mean, it's pretty easy really. Anything I find revolting or horrible between consenting adults, it's on me to keep it out of my mind and focus on what I do only. There's actually scripture to support that - Phil 4:8.

But as for adult/child sex, yes, that is the utterly vile and is nothing to do with love. Even its proponents talk about nothing but the sexual element "children are sexual" (barf). They aren't in to have relationships or marriages, they just want to vent their sexual desires. And, as anyone knows who ever unfortunately has read about any of this, many of them pursue multiple targets of very young children, and they think nothing of harming or killing their victims. It's a deviant desire, there's nothing of love in it.

 

[DZoolander]

I agree completely.

With respect to the gay sex stuff - I find it repulsive, too. But I don't base my opinions on things based upon how icky I find them. Any trip to urban dictionary will provide you with plenty of examples of heterosexual originated ideas that I find just as (if not more) repugnant as the idea of gay sex...and I'm not about to try and legislate around that stuff either.

 

[LinkH]

Paedophilia is already an orientation. However, paedophile activity can never be legal so long as consent is required.

There are plenty of policies and laws on the books against discriminating based on 'sexual orientation.' There is as much of a case for pedophilia and zoophilia to be classified as 'sexual orientations' as homosexuality. Some things should be discriminated against. If you were responsible for hiring kindergarten teachers, and you find out that a candidate is a pedophile, you should be able to turn him or her down for the job on that basis. You should legally be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you are hiring farm hands, you should be able to discriminate against farm hands.

Your comment about 'consent' doesn't make sense. Pedophilia is illegal as long as children aren't allowed to legally give consent. Otherwise, pervs can use puppies and candy to get the kid to consent to get into the van with no windows to try to get their way. There are also activists in these movements pushing for lower age of consent laws. I posted quotes from an article that shows ties between an LGBT organization and an organization that promotes 'sexual freedom', as they call it for, for children.

Another reason people see a connection between creating and legalizing 'gay marriage' and pedophilia is that we can see that standards not only of righteousness, but of revulsion at sexual perversion, have lowered as a society. It's like when you hear about people who watch porn and get addicted to it who end up watching weird violent stuff that gets worse and worse so they can get the same feeling of excitement off the porn (or end up killing college girls to get the same feeling). What was once revolting becomes exhilarating. Before the media brainwashing, most people had a natural aversion to the idea of people of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. When your sensitibilities start getting calloused when it comes to sexuality, then worse and worse things can become acceptable. Lowering the standards for sin can open a floodgate for it.