Consenting Adults

[Babykat]

There are no excuses.

Gay sex, fornication, adultery, etc., are deliberate behaviors. They have to think and drop trou before they copulate. The Holy Spirit can change them. That's their ticket.

My friend your are to blind by hate to see the truth.

John 13:34,35
34“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logicman]

My friend your are to blind by hate to see the truth.

John 13:34,35
34“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"blinded by hate"? That's just more of your liberal clap trap.

If it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay too. Nope, not a chance.

For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences).

So, nice try but no cigar.

 

[Crusader13]

If you're speaking of homosexuality, the issue most people have is with gay people getting married, not being in a relationship with each other. Nobody has ever called for homosexuality to be banned. What you do in your own sexual life is your own business. But when you want to get married, in an institution designed by society for society to foster the production of children, using many systems which rely on taxpayer money, yea sorry you need society's permission. You're not entitled to my money and support unless you earn it.

 

[Babykat]

"blinded by hate"? That's just more of your liberal clap trap.

If it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay too. Nope, not a chance.

For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences).

So, nice try but no cigar.

Would you oppose interracial marriage. 80 years ago most religions opposed it based on biblical reasons. But love Conquered that as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

If you're speaking of homosexuality, the issue most people have is with gay people getting married, not being in a relationship with each other. Nobody has ever called for homosexuality to be banned. What you do in your own sexual life is your own business. But when you want to get married, in an institution designed by society for society to foster the production of children, using many systems which rely on taxpayer money, yea sorry you need society's permission. You're not entitled to my money and support unless you earn it.

The argument over same sex marriage is old dating back to the Roman Empire. Where same sex marriages were preformed. But not recognized by law. But even with that your argument is flawed. Name one program that your taxes go to that married couples receive that unmarried couples don’t. Please just one. If your trying to take advantage of tax funded programs for financial gain it’s better to be not married. That’s why most families living on welfare don’t get married. Yes there are benefits to getting married like shared health insurance, joint filing of taxes, and shared properties. But none of that is tax funded and filing joint on taxes really doesn’t give you more money back. If one works and the other one doesn’t they can file jointly and the person working will get more back. But if they filed separately the person working would get less back and the person that didn’t work would get more back then if the filed jointly. If both work then there combined income could push them into a higher tax bracket. If that doesn’t happen the get the same back filing jointly or separate. The only real advantage to marriage is shared insurance. But that’s not tax funded. Just like the multi car insurance discount isn’t taxed funded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

If you're speaking of homosexuality, the issue most people have is with gay people getting married, not being in a relationship with each other. Nobody has ever called for homosexuality to be banned. What you do in your own sexual life is your own business. But when you want to get married, in an institution designed by society for society to foster the production of children, using many systems which rely on taxpayer money, yea sorry you need society's permission. You're not entitled to my money and support unless you earn it.

If marriage is only for society to foster the production of children. Then people who are to old or have some other reason they can’t produce children shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. So a baron woman or a man with low sperm count shouldn’t be allowed to get married. They can’t produce children. Why should they benefit from your supposed tax funded systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

I agree on principle but there is the problem of when one of those consenting adults is married. Adultery occurring between consenting adults injures a 3rd party. IMO consenting adults are ethically required to contain their behavior so as not to injure others.

If you are married and in your marriage it is agreed that you will be excessive. Then going out side of the marriage for sex is a contractual breech. In its base form marriage is a contract between people. If part of that contract is to have sex excessively inside the bonds of the marriage and you break that part of the contract. It should be treated like any other breech of contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RAMOSS]

If you are married and in your marriage it is agreed that you will be excessive. Then going out side of the marriage for sex is a contractual breech. In its base form marriage is a contract between people. If part of that contract is to have sex excessively inside the bonds of the marriage and you break that part of the contract. It should be treated like any other breech of contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The word you are looking for instead of excessive is exclusive. Excessive sex is only for new relationships and newly weds.

 

[Babykat]

The word you are looking for instead of excessive is exclusive. Excessive sex is only for new relationships and newly weds.

Your absolutely right. I will sometimes make mistakes like that. I have a word recognition disability. With spell check and google it’s not a big deal normally. But if a word looks close I will think it’s right and when that happens I make a mistake. I’m sorry I will try to do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RAMOSS]

Your absolutely right. I will sometimes make mistakes like that. I have a word recognition disability. With spell check and google it’s not a big deal normally. But if a word looks close I will think it’s right and when that happens I make a mistake. I’m sorry I will try to do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In many respects, the word excessive is appropriate and amusing .. I knew what you meant. It happens.

 

[Crusader13]

If marriage is only for society to foster the production of children. Then people who are to old or have some other reason they can’t produce children shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. So a baron woman or a man with low sperm count shouldn’t be allowed to get married. They can’t produce children. Why should they benefit from your supposed tax funded systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a lame ass argument. Heterosexual couples can have kids, therefore heterosexual marriage should be supported. The law isn't there to nit-pick at individual couples. It's simply there to foster for the largest contingent. The fact is most heterosexual marriages will bear children. Some heterosexual marriages involving old or infertile couples will also bear children. But no homosexual marriage will ever bear children.

Stopping infertile hetero couples from getting married presents massive complications. What you're suggesting is that we make everyone who wants to get married get tested first and sign a contract promising to have kids. That's not economically or logistically feasible. It's simply easier to go off the statistics and trust the odds which say that if you promote straight marriage, most of those marriages will bear children.

Thankfully we don't need to do this testing or calculation for gay couples. They will never have kids. We know this beyond a doubt, there's no question about it.

 

[Crusader13]

Name one program that your taxes go to that married couples receive that unmarried couples don’t. Please just one.

You're missing the point.

Gay people need society. Society doesn't need gay people. That's a biological and scientific fact.

Gay couples benefit from taxpayer money. My money. Ergo they need taxpayers permission. They're not automatically entitled to that.

 

[Babykat]

You're missing the point.

Gay people need society. Society doesn't need gay people. That's a biological and scientific fact.

Gay couples benefit from taxpayer money. My money. Ergo they need taxpayers permission. They're not automatically entitled to that.

Let me ask you this. How does two people of the same sex getting married effect you personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crusader13]

Let me ask you this. How does two people of the same sex getting married effect you personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heaps. I can be legally forced to participate in said marriage, even if my religious beliefs prohibit it. That's a violation of my rights. That marriage is affecting me and every Christian out there who may be called upon to support it yet be morally obliged by their faith not to do so.

If I pass away and my kids end up in adoptive care, I should have a right to pre-determine that they should not be raised by homosexuals. That is my right as a parent and a Christian.

If I ran a business and was happy to hire a gay person, I cannot in moral objectivity pay for their parental leave. It is against my religion.

This extends into a plethora of other complex issues. To be clear, the mere act of two people having sex and signing a document does not affect me, but what that act leads to on a wider scale certainly does. If gays were happy to allow reasonable exceptions to the above scenarios I would have no problem with them getting married. Live and let live. But this is not the case. The larger gay community has clearly shown they are not interested in equality when it comes to the equality of those who do not agree with them. Every gay wedding increases the chance that I could be forced to participated else I risk being sued and shut down. That's a huge effect on me personally.

 

[RamFel]

If marriage is only for society to foster the production of children. Then people who are to old or have some other reason they can’t produce children shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. So a baron woman or a man with low sperm count shouldn’t be allowed to get married. They can’t produce children. Why should they benefit from your supposed tax funded systems.

Thankfully, your suggestion is just that. A suggestion.

 

[noonereal]

Why is that legal and moral concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

.

I don't think it is difficult to grasp for anyone.

The problem is one of fear not understanding, for some.

People are simply uncomfortable with things and ideas that they have not experienced or have had bad experiences with.

Fear rules the human. All animals. It's why we are still around. It's not all bad.

 

[Babykat]

Heaps. I can be legally forced to participate in said marriage, even if my religious beliefs prohibit it. That's a violation of my rights. That marriage is affecting me and every Christian out there who may be called upon to support it yet be morally obliged by their faith not to do so.

If I pass away and my kids end up in adoptive care, I should have a right to pre-determine that they should not be raised by homosexuals. That is my right as a parent and a Christian.

If I ran a business and was happy to hire a gay person, I cannot in moral objectivity pay for their parental leave. It is against my religion.

This extends into a plethora of other complex issues. To be clear, the mere act of two people having sex and signing a document does not affect me, but what that act leads to on a wider scale certainly does. If gays were happy to allow reasonable exceptions to the above scenarios I would have no problem with them getting married. Live and let live. But this is not the case. The larger gay community has clearly shown they are not interested in equality when it comes to the equality of those who do not agree with them. Every gay wedding increases the chance that I could be forced to participated else I risk being sued and shut down. That's a huge effect on me personally.

I will concede your first 2 points. You should have the right to deny services to anyone you want. This idea or right got removed because of all the business denying services to blacks in the 60. But truly I don’t want to give my money to any business that hates my way of life. Second a parent should have the right to choose how their children are raised. But any parents with a good will wouldn’t have to worry about their children ending up in Forster care. The 3rd point is tricky. Because now we are talking about equal employment opportunity. If you make it so companies or business can discriminate against their employees offering some benefits to some while denying it to others. That would be bad. As a individual person you should be able to discriminate against anyone you don’t like. But the government, housing industry, and corporations and businesses shouldn’t be able to discriminate. When I say business here I’m not talking about small business. Single person or family owned business wouldn’t fall under these laws. So if you own a florist or bakery you can pick and choose you customers and employees. But the bakery and flower shop at Walmart couldn’t. If you did choose to hire a homosexual you would still be required to offer them all the same benefits. But as a small business you could choose not to hire them. But this script could be flipped on Christians to. That’s why protecting equal opportunity to government services, employment, housing, and products from big business and corporations is so important. California just put a state bill forth that would make the sales of bibles and religious publications illegal. If the liberals get the upper hand Christians could be the ones fighting for equal rights and opportunities. Just so you know I’m not a liberal or homosexual. I’m a heterosexual married person with 2 daughters. Whither homosexuals can get married or not isn’t a big deal to me. But everyone should have equal rights and opportunities. If we start choosing and picking who can and can’t not have rights and opportunities. We create a sub class of society that isn’t equal to the rest of us and I don’t care who you are you know that isn’t right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

If marriage is only for society to foster the production of children. Then people who are to old or have some other reason they can’t produce children shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. So a baron woman or a man with low sperm count shouldn’t be allowed to get married. They can’t produce children. Why should they benefit from your supposed tax funded systems.

Thankfully, your suggestion is just that. A suggestion.

That was my counter to an argument that only heterosexual should be allowed to get married because they are the only ones that produce children. That isn’t my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

I don't think it is difficult to grasp for anyone.

The problem is one of fear not understanding, for some.

People are simply uncomfortable with things and ideas that they have not experienced or have had bad experiences with.

Fear rules the human. All animals. It's why we are still around. It's not all bad.

I completely agree with I would add hate with fear. I have known a couple of people who disowned or shunned their own children for being homosexual or trans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[noonereal]

I completely agree with I would add hate with fear. I have known a couple of people who disowned or shunned their own children for being homosexual or trans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate is a result of the fear.

I literally can't imagine rejecting a kid for how you created them. But I know people do. Insecure people do. Very insecure people.

 

[Crusader13]

I will concede your first 2 points. You should have the right to deny services to anyone you want. This idea or right got removed because of all the business denying services to blacks in the 60. But truly I don’t want to give my money to any business that hates my way of life. Second a parent should have the right to choose how their children are raised. But any parents with a good will wouldn’t have to worry about their children ending up in Forster care. The 3rd point is tricky. Because now we are talking about equal employment opportunity. If you make it so companies or business can discriminate against their employees offering some benefits to some while denying it to others. That would be bad. As a individual person you should be able to discriminate against anyone you don’t like. But the government, housing industry, and corporations and businesses shouldn’t be able to discriminate. When I say business here I’m not talking about small business. Single person or family owned business wouldn’t fall under these laws. So if you own a florist or bakery you can pick and choose you customers and employees. But the bakery and flower shop at Walmart couldn’t. If you did choose to hire a homosexual you would still be required to offer them all the same benefits. But as a small business you could choose not to hire them. But this script could be flipped on Christians to. That’s why protecting equal opportunity to government services, employment, housing, and products from big business and corporations is so important. California just put a state bill forth that would make the sales of bibles and religious publications illegal. If the liberals get the upper hand Christians could be the ones fighting for equal rights and opportunities. Just so you know I’m not a liberal or homosexual. I’m a heterosexual married person with 2 daughters. Whither homosexuals can get married or not isn’t a big deal to me. But everyone should have equal rights and opportunities. If we start choosing and picking who can and can’t not have rights and opportunities. We create a sub class of society that isn’t equal to the rest of us and I don’t care who you are you know that isn’t right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a good point, and thanks for seeing both sides of the argument. I agree there is potential for unwanted consequences.

Tbh I don't know the solution. It's a complicated issue which needs a lot of open discussion. The point is that it's obsolete to say that what two consenting adults do is none of my business...I wish it wasn't, but unfortunately the State can and will make it my business due to widespread pressure from the gay movement.

 

[Lursa]

If you're speaking of homosexuality, the issue most people have is with gay people getting married, not being in a relationship with each other. Nobody has ever called for homosexuality to be banned. What you do in your own sexual life is your own business. But when you want to get married, in an institution designed by society for society to foster the production of children, using many systems which rely on taxpayer money, yea sorry you need society's permission. You're not entitled to my money and support unless you earn it.

How do gay couples, married or not, raise children differently?

And they obviously want to have families, kids...because sometimes they have to work even harder to do so. It's only now becoming easier for gay people adopt (and with over 100,000 kids in the US waiting to be adopted, it's unconscionable to try and prevent them from providing these kids homes).

They use surrogates or IVF to have kids, or they have them biologically from prior relationships, they adopt their step kids etc.

But as families...they all want the same things. So why shouldnt they be entitled to the same federally and state provided benefits for families?

 

[Lursa]

Heaps. I can be legally forced to participate in said marriage, even if my religious beliefs prohibit it. That's a violation of my rights. That marriage is affecting me and every Christian out there who may be called upon to support it yet be morally obliged by their faith not to do so.

If I pass away and my kids end up in adoptive care, I should have a right to pre-determine that they should not be raised by homosexuals. That is my right as a parent and a Christian.

If I ran a business and was happy to hire a gay person, I cannot in moral objectivity pay for their parental leave. It is against my religion.

This extends into a plethora of other complex issues. To be clear, the mere act of two people having sex and signing a document does not affect me, but what that act leads to on a wider scale certainly does. If gays were happy to allow reasonable exceptions to the above scenarios I would have no problem with them getting married. Live and let live. But this is not the case. The larger gay community has clearly shown they are not interested in equality when it comes to the equality of those who do not agree with them. Every gay wedding increases the chance that I could be forced to participated else I risk being sued and shut down. That's a huge effect on me personally.

Insert 'black person' for all your instances of gays and see just how stupid and ignorant all that sounds.

Live and let live means marrying the person you love. See: Loving vs Virginia.

The neanderthals that objected to interracial marriage had all the same 'arguments,' right down to Bible scriptures. Their ignorance was still unconscionable and unConstitutional.

 

[Lursa]

I wish it wasn't, but unfortunately the State can and will make it my business due to widespread pressure from the gay movement.

THey said the same things about 'the women's movement' and 'the civil rights movement'. We/they all had to fight for equality in our society too.

But history regards such ignorant people very unkindly now, with good reason. It might be smart to learn from history.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Back when we had standards, the argument was that certain activities degrade society as a whole. Of course that ship has already sailed.

You're right, that ship has sailed. The overwhelming majority of America finally agrees that argument is very silly.