The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why every Christian should be in favour of gay marriage > Comments

Why every Christian should be in favour of gay marriage : Comments

By Dave Smith, published 15/12/2010

Christians have no basis for objecting to gay people having access to the institution of marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
Proxy,

There are also laws to protect the public. For example if you don't wear a seat belt, it is not going to affect anyone else. Incest produces damaged children. So once again is a pathetic comparison to gay couples.

The only incest that does not affect anyone else is gay incest between adults, and I certainly have never heard of any instances, so once again a pathetic comparison.

PS we are not in the middle east.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<The only incest that does not affect anyone else is gay incest between adults>>

Clearly then, the Opposition Minister for Gay Incest would support the right of a father to have sex with his eighteen year old son because it doesn't affect anyone else.

It's interesting to see where "progressive" thought inexorably leads.
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:52:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Everyday in the Middle East children are deemed to be consenting to marry adults and homosexuals are being corporally, if not capitally, punished."-Proxy

And yet they do this from an 'absolutist perspective'. Curious.

The mistake is thinking that we argue that we should apply laws that we think are wrong from an 'absolutist perspective'. This is not the case. We argue that laws should be applied as to what we perceive to be the consequences and the risks to society and people. Is there a great risk of damage to the child? Yes, and the child does not understand what these consequences are, thus consent cannot be given. The absolutist perspectives found in 'the middle east' (or more specifically almost nowhere) do not take this into account because they are, well absolutist. And wrong by our reasoning.
Is there a great risk of damage to two consenting adults? We think that is far less, because adults can understand the consequences. Laws against homosexuality are then just be a case of 'saving them from themselves', which they clearly do not want or need, not saving 'us' from from 'them'. Adults can make decisions for children, but there is a limit and there must come a time when adults can make decisions for themselves. That is not an 'absolutist perspective'.

Your absolutism sucks just as much as those perspectives found in 'the Middle East' and is just as illusory.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Is there a great risk of damage to two consenting adults? We think that is far less, because adults can understand the consequences. Laws against (incest) are then just be a case of 'saving them from themselves', which they clearly do not want or need, not saving 'us' from from 'them'.>>

Your relativism sanctions adult incest, as is now clearly evident.

We have at least progressed to the point of dismantling the false wall that supporters and proponents of SSM have built between incest and homosexuality.

A wall of pretence, to separate the "moral" homosexuality from the "immoral" incest.

Ultimately they are okay with adult incest because when it comes to the crunch they cannot logically exclude incest from their concept of diverse sexuality, as demonstrated by their "no harm" argument.

Moral relativism will do that.

Adult homosexuality, adult incest, adult bestiality - where's the harm?
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 10:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see you have stopped talking about paedophilia and started on other tracks, I'll take that as an acknowledgement that children cannot give consent.

Similarly, animals cannot give consent. And yes, as abhorrent as you seem to think it is, while I would certainly not wish to encourage the practice, consenting adults that happen to be relatives that wish to have relations are not my concern and I would not wish to lock them up or have them criminally charged. To what purpose? If that counts as 'sanction' in your mind, then so be it.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 1:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Christians have no basis for objecting to gay people having access to the institution of marriage.>>

I suggest the author reads the following article:
"Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

If he still believes that "every Christian should be in favour of gay marriage" after reading that "gay marriage" shares very little resemblance with normal marriage, then maybe he could share with the rest of us what he perceives marriage should be.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 20 December 2010 9:35:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy