Today's Ruling

[Armoured]

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.

You can classify whatever you like as an "orientation". Orientations are all legal. Stop trying to force hoimosexuality and bestiality/paedophilia/et al into the same category. They're simply not comparable.

 

[LinkH]

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.

I probably don't want to read these entries. But I find it hard to believe that there are things like this that only opposite sex couples could engage in that homosexuals wouldn't also.

I believe a sense of revulsion at perversion can be a God-given thing. It also helps us as a species. Homosexual behavior isn't good for human health. It's how AIDS spread. Tears in the rectum aren't particularly healthy, either, and I'd imagine those activities are much more common among homosexuals.

The fact that some people in society no longer fear God or care what He believes in moral doesn't change the fact that God is real and that we will all stand before God someday.

 

[LinkH]

You can classify whatever you like as an "orientation". Orientations are all legal. Stop trying to force hoimosexuality and bestiality/paedophilia/et al into the same category. They're simply not comparable.

They absolutely are. A lot of pedophilia is of the homosexual variety. And Leviticus deals with homosexual behavior and beastiality in the same passage.

 

[Armoured]

They absolutely are. A lot of pedophilia is of the homosexual variety. And Leviticus deals with homosexual behavior and beastiality in the same passage.

Yeah, we're talking about secular law here, not Leviticus. And however much paedophilia is (arguably) homosexual, more is heterosexual. Shall we lump heterosexuals in with paedophiles too? No? Then don't do it to homosexuals.

 

[LinkH]

Yeah, we're talking about secular law here, not Leviticus. And however much paedophilia is (arguably) homosexual, more is heterosexual. Shall we lump heterosexuals in with paedophiles too? No? Then don't do it to homosexuals.

We can lump in those who engage in incest. Sex in marriage, done rightly with the right attitude, is good in God's sight. This other stuff isn't.

I'm not a secular lawyer. But I do read the Bible. And this isn't 'secular law forums.'

 

[Armoured]

We can lump in those who engage in incest. Sex in marriage, done rightly with the right attitude, is good in God's sight. This other stuff isn't.

I'm not a secular lawyer. But I do read the Bible. And this isn't 'secular law forums.'

Double standard away. Be my guest.

 

[LinkH]

EZoolander and Hetta,

If two gay twin brothers want to legally marry each other to see each other in the hospital and make inheritance easy, don't you think they should have the right? Why not a father-daughter, brother-sister, or mother-son couple? Why should they be treated differently from homosexuals? Isn't that discrimination? Should there be no morality-based discrimination? If it's a mother-son couple, mom may not be fertile anymore unless they marry young.

 

[Armoured]

EZoolander and Hetta,

If two gay twin brothers want to legally marry each other to see each other in the hospital and make inheritance easy, don't you think they should have the right? Why not a father-daughter, brother-sister, or mother-son couple? Why should they be treated differently from homosexuals? Isn't that discrimination? Should there be no morality-based discrimination? If it's a mother-son couple, mom may not be fertile anymore unless they marry young.

If you come up with a sufficiently overwrought, overly contrived hypothetical, maybe you'll convince someone. Hang in there!

 

[Hetta]

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.

I don't know where you live or what you understand of the law but pedophiles are turned down if they apply for a job with children. It's a little thing called the sex offender registry. However, if a person is not on that registry, you can't know.

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.

You are confusing illegal acts with legal acts. When children are no longer children i.e. after they reach the age of consent, then they can give consent, because they are at the age of consent. I don't know what's complicated about that. An adult is not a child. An adult can give consent.

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.

I can get revolted if I stop and think about what my heterosexual neighbors are doing behind closed doors. Does that mean that they should stop having sex to appease me? Or that I should keep my mind out of their bedroom? Heterosexual porn is weird. Porn is weird, period. Heterosexual serial killers do get some of their ideas from violent porn, but since when do homosexual men rape females? Nope. That's absolutely a heterosexual thing.

 

[Hetta]

EZoolander and Hetta,

If two gay twin brothers want to legally marry each other to see each other in the hospital and make inheritance easy, don't you think they should have the right? Why not a father-daughter, brother-sister, or mother-son couple? Why should they be treated differently from homosexuals? Isn't that discrimination? Should there be no morality-based discrimination? If it's a mother-son couple, mom may not be fertile anymore unless they marry young.

Incest is illegal and therefore it's not something I chose to become revolted about. I can choose what to think about, you see.

 

[Hetta]

You can classify whatever you like as an "orientation". Orientations are all legal. Stop trying to force hoimosexuality and bestiality/paedophilia/et al into the same category. They're simply not comparable.

But what about if a dog and a cat want to get married, and what will their babies be? Dogs or cats? It's very confusing you know.

 

[LinkH]

Double standard away. Be my guest.

Double standard? Makes no sense. A man having sex with a man is perversion and a sin against God. A man having sex with a boy is perversion and a sin against God. A man having sex with some little girl is perversion and a sin against God. A man having sex with his wife is allowed. It's not (generally) perversion. 'Marriage is holy in all and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers, God will judge.'

 

[Hetta]

It depends on what you call perversion. Some Christians believe that oral sex between consenting, married, heterosexual adults is perversion. I think they should keep out of those people's business.

 

[LinkH]

I don't know where you live or what you understand of the law but pedophiles are turned down if they apply for a job with children. It's a little thing called the sex offender registry. However, if a person is not on that registry, you can't know.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children under the age of 14. People on the sex offender registry were found guilty of crimes like rape, child molestation, or indecent exposure when they went to the bathroom in the bushes. As far as I know, there is no law against adults being sexually attracted to children. And if pedophilia is considered an 'orientation' then organizations forbidden from discriminating based on 'sexual orientation' are not legally allowed to discriminate against someone who applies for a job taking kids to the bathroom at the daycare for saying he or she is sexually attracted to children.

You are confusing illegal acts with legal acts. When children are no longer children i.e. after they reach the age of consent, then they can give consent, because they are at the age of consent. I don't know what's complicated about that. An adult is not a child. An adult can give consent.

A child can give consent, literally. (Look up 'consent'). It doesn't count for legal purposes, but all that is fungible. The Supreme Court could choose to override laws about age of consent next month if they wanted to, claiming child sex is guaranteed by the preamble to the Constitution.

 

[LinkH]

If you come up with a sufficiently overwrought, overly contrived hypothetical, maybe you'll convince someone. Hang in there!

It was just in the news (and blogosphere) that a woman wanted to marry (off the books I suppose) and live with her long lost father in New Jersey. They'd already been sleeping together. It's a minority of the population, but it happens.

 

[HannahT]

I believe a sense of revulsion at perversion can be a God-given thing. It also helps us as a species. Homosexual behavior isn't good for human health. It's how AIDS spread. Tears in the rectum aren't particularly healthy, either, and I'd imagine those activities are much more common among homosexuals.

Oh boy. Another lovely myth about homosexuality that was popular way back when.

Nonetheless, the theory rests on facts, and at least a few of them are undisputed -- including, most significantly, HIV's family tree. There are two species of the virus, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The first evolved from a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) found in chimpanzees, while the second came from an SIV in a type of monkey called the sooty mangabey.

The source of AIDS was reported on YEARS ago, but of course the stories of how gay people 'started' it still persists today I see. Please.

They hunt these animals, and it spread via their blood. AIDS was spread by blood transfusions with infected people. Sexual behavior from anyone could also spread with infected people. Yes, I remember the stories of how it spread in the gay bath houses too....wonder if they monkeys were there as well. Sigh.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Reading some of the recent posts it got me thinking about something. We are all discussing this from likely an american perspective. But outside our country some of these things we say "Are impossible" do happen such as adults marrying kids, adults legaly being pedos to kids, adults marrying/having sex with animals...etc. I do realize we are a more modern civilized (sometimes) nation but it doesn't mean things can't change. Rome was once seen as the pinnacle of how society was. And they fell one day.

For now people should probably focus less on what the future might have in store in terms of who can marry what but focus more on the future of your rights as someone whos christian to be allowed to be against homosexuality. A few gays I've talked to said "Most of us don't want to infringe on your rights to believe what you want!". But then this story appeared:
http://wishtv.com/2015/07/05/state-issues-final-order-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/

The guy now has to pay $135,000 because he didn't want to bake that cake. Focus on this stuff now because religion also needs protection.

 

[Armoured]

Reading some of the recent posts it got me thinking about something. We are all discussing this from likely an american perspective. But outside our country some of these things we say "Are impossible" do happen such as adults marrying kids, adults legaly being pedos to kids, adults marrying/having sex with animals...etc. I do realize we are a more modern civilized (sometimes) nation but it doesn't mean things can't change. Rome was once seen as the pinnacle of how society was. And they fell one day.

For now people should probably focus less on what the future might have in store in terms of who can marry what but focus more on the future of your rights as someone whos christian to be allowed to be against homosexuality. A few gays I've talked to said "Most of us don't want to infringe on your rights to believe what you want!". But then this story appeared:
http://wishtv.com/2015/07/05/state-issues-final-order-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/

The guy now has to pay $135,000 because he didn't want to bake that cake. Focus on this stuff now because religion also needs protection.

You're allowed to be against homosexuality all you like. You're just not allowed to discriminate against them in a public business, in some jurisdictions.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

You're allowed to be against homosexuality all you like. You're just not allowed to discriminate against them in a public business, in some jurisdictions.

To be technical this thing that passed at the supreme court only says their marriage is recognized by the government, not by anyone else. So if a couple came to me and wanted a cake done I'd say "Sorry, only the government recognizes your marriage. I don't have to.". Let them sue me and take all they want. It would just draw criticism to them because its obvious I wouldn't be the only place to get a cake from. Thats what I feel this should really be about in those cases. Targeting christian buisness for the sole purpose of running them out of town due to court costs and so on. If a christian targeted a gay bushiness the reaction would be totally different.

And the bigger issue would be what about harassment at churches. If your a buisness then lets say fine, you have to serve them (since you don't really know if someones gay or not anyways), what about church? What happens when they say its discriminatory not to marry them because of religious beliefs and your a church. Because a church is "religion" and on those grounds its not discriminatory because the government has no power of that. Again I point out there are a bazillion of people that can marry you. If one church can't I'm sure you can find someone no matter where you live. If you can't then just go to the next city.

 

[Armoured]

To be technical this thing that passed at the supreme court only says their marriage is recognized by the government, not by anyone else. So if a couple came to me and wanted a cake done I'd say "Sorry, only the government recognizes your marriage. I don't have to.". Let them sue me and take all they want. It would just draw criticism to them because its obvious I wouldn't be the only place to get a cake from. Thats what I feel this should really be about in those cases. Targeting christian buisness for the sole purpose of running them out of town due to court costs and so on. If a christian targeted a gay bushiness the reaction would be totally different.

And the bigger issue would be what about harassment at churches. If your a buisness then lets say fine, you have to serve them (since you don't really know if someones gay or not anyways), what about church? What happens when they say its discriminatory not to marry them because of religious beliefs and your a church. Because a church is "religion" and on those grounds its not discriminatory because the government has no power of that. Again I point out there are a bazillion of people that can marry you. If one church can't I'm sure you can find someone no matter where you live. If you can't then just go to the next city.

You, personally, don't have to recognise their marriage. But you still have to sell them a cake if you're a cake seller. Show me where it's written cake sellers are only allowed to sell cakes to marriages they recognise as "actual" marriages?

As for discrimination in churches, that's only been asked and answered about a million times. Churches are exempt from discrimination laws. If you're really worried, you could read the Supreme court's actual ruling, which specifically states that churches aren't going to be forced to marry anyone.

Churches have a long history of not marrying certain types of people, and secular governments have a long history of not trying to make them. Seriously, if you can find a single example, from any time, from anywhere, ever, where any government has compelled any church to perform a wedding, I'll jump on the bandwagon. Until that time, however, I se the "but they're gunna force churches!" thing as nothing but fear mongering and bad losing.