Christian Activists in Britain Protest New Gay Rights Law

kenod said:
Animals do it ... yeah, that's a really good argument!
Click to expand...

Hi,

Well this fact does highlight that it is by definition natural. You know, as in naturally occurring.

Other mammalian species don't get accused of deciding to choose to engage in sinful behaviour do they?

s.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
could you expand on your answer? :)
Click to expand...

Hi,

If you insist! :)

I would say that the removal of what I consider to be a discrimination has got to be “for the common good”, “ethical and moral” and “progress” in the same way as it would be to ending a bar to women voting. As a generalisation, I’m in favour of equality of treatment and rights for all, irrespective of sex, race etc etc etc.

It is simply a principle that I believe in. Indeed the civil partnership law that has been passed in the UK now means that for me personally, I am being discriminated against. However, this is another day’s political battle which I reckon will come, and in time, change.

s.
 
hmmmm the people voted....those they voted for passed a law...the people object....will they vote them out and vote in folks to repeal the law??

I guess that is the Christianity v. Democracy debate...

And presents the same issue that we have problems with in other nations...when Muslims, or Hindus or Jews rule...and they make their laws based on their books and discriminate against others...

hard to put the shoes on the righteous feet...
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
My point is that people who discriminate against homosexuals (or against anyone, for that matter) never take the time to get to know that person as an individual, but see him/her as nothing more than "Ooh, a big, bad, homosexual, therefore bad and evil and go away." I am so much more than my sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

There are some people who react emotionally with a feeling of disgust, and sometimes even hate. Jesus did not treat people that way ... nor do I.

I know a number of homosexual people quite well, and realize that they can have loving relationships. The person, and even the love they feel, are not what the Bible condemns.

Jesus condemned sexual immorality (Mat 15:19, Mark 7:21). You would have a difficult time trying to prove that he was condemning all sexual immorality except homosexuality since the OT contains very specific prohibition against same sex acts.

PS ... btw, there are no "gay centurions" in my Bible!
 
BlaznFattyz said:
is what society is being asked to allow, is what society is protesting for the common good?
Click to expand...

I think it is difficult to define the term "good" for everyone. For the Christian, what God tells us is good in the Bible, is the absolute.

If we address the issue solely from a social perspective, same sex unions are debatable. There are some cases where injustice does occur and these need to be rectified. For instance, the partner of a dying person in a homosexual relationship can be denied access by a hostile family.

Where inequities do occur, I support legislative change. I do not believe that giving the status of marriage to homosexual couples is the solution.

Whenever society uses legislative means to change the boundaries, other consequences follow. What today is meant to address individual hardship, tomorrow becomes an accepted and equal alternative.
 
Snoopy said:
Well this fact does highlight that it is by definition natural. You know, as in naturally occurring.
Click to expand...

Homosexual behaviour in animals shows that it is very rare and not normal.

When homosexual behaviour occurs in animals there is a purpose which is not the purpose ever proposed by human homosexuals: subordination, adolescent development, captivity.

Other mammalian species don't get accused of deciding to choose to engage in sinful behaviour do they?
Click to expand...

And we don't accuse animals of being promiscuous ... it is not a conscious choice for them, but it is for us.
 
Hi wil,

In the UK I don't think the 3 main political parties are looking to repeal this new law (obviously not the one that brought it to the statute book!); there isn't (I don't believe) widespread opposition to it.

s.
 
kenod said:
When homosexual behaviour occurs in animals there is a purpose which is not the purpose ever proposed by human homosexuals: subordination, adolescent development, captivity.
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon, what exactly do you mean by this?
I'm eagerly awaiting your explanation because if it's the same as the conclusion I've drawn from it, I have some HUGE objections to raise...but not for a few days, as that's probably how long it will take me to calm down.:mad:
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
I beg your pardon, what exactly do you mean by this?
I'm eagerly awaiting your explanation because if it's the same as the conclusion I've drawn from it, I have some HUGE objections to raise...but not for a few days, as that's probably how long it will take me to calm down.:mad:
Click to expand...

Calmed down yet? :)

Most homosexual people I have encountered would argue in favour of their psychological/emotional orientation, rather than their sexual activity serving some specific purpose, as it appears to in the animal kingdom.

The whole animal argument is moot however, because most homosexual people would not use animal behaviour to support other practices such as promiscuity or aggression.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi,

Well this fact does highlight that it is by definition natural. You know, as in naturally occurring.

Other mammalian species don't get accused of deciding to choose to engage in sinful behaviour do they?

s.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because other mammalian species aren't with sin. They are not fallen. They don't need redemption back to the position and status they originally had within God's creation. They didn't disobey God to begin with...:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top