Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Not sure what your point is? Nobody said anything about the definition of wife. I just pointed out marriage isn’t defined in the Bible.

 

If one can admit that there are numerous references to wives, weddings and adultery in the Bible ( there are), and that "wife" means the female spouse of a person married to a man, which it does, then one necessarily concedes that marriage is biblically countenanced.

If one cannot, one is either pettifogging or living in denial.

 

No matter how badly you wish it, marriage is not defined anywhere in the Bible. Sorry.

 

We disagree, and it is irrelevant whether or not you understand why Christians believe as they do.

 

I don’t care what you believe, or what you agree with. It’s an objective fact the Bible does not define marriage as 1 man and 2 woman. There is no debate on that. You can believe marriage is anything you want. That has no relevance to anyone other than you. You are free to only marry a woman. Your beliefs however do not affect anyone else. Marriage means 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 1 woman here in the US.

 

Is anyone arguing for that? There were those in the OT who married more than one wife, against God's plan, with bad consequences.

As I would say to you.

Thanks to a stupid, activist judge decision. Next up on the slippery slope no doubt will be multiple spouses, marriage with animals, with children, etc.

Tell me, which parent don't kids need, a mother or a father?

 

No, thanks to the constitution .

Slippery slope fallacy

Depends. Numerous studies show kids raised by same sex parents do just as well or better than opposite sex parents.

 

The Constitution says nothing about people with same-sex feelings. The Founders believed in Natural Law, i.e. that which doesn't violate God's law. You seem to believe in a five person judicial dictatorship.

Not this one.

https://www.familyresearchinst.org/...omosexual-parents-turn-out-the-best-evidence/

No kid would sign up for such a weird experiment, but I guess the wishes of the alphabet people overrules all else.

 

Well your god did rape a unwilling child so you should support all that right? That was right before he killed himself to erase laws that he had previously created.

Children cannot consent
Animals cannot consent

There is definitely a religious argument as to why multiple wives should be allowed — it’s practiced in numerous religious — but I’m guessing that isn’t religious freedom to you as your religion is the only one that should be forced unto others, right?

None of you can give a valid reason why gay people should not be able to sign a legal document — and until you do, marriage equality for everyone!

 

Yet you oppose marriage equality for children and animals. Why are you a bigoted hater?

/Sarcasm off

I'll play your game here, there are certainly underage people who are more mature than many adults, who are you to deny them their basic human rights?

It will happen, the movement to normalize pedophilia is basically a subset of the gay agenda. Gays are a few percent of the population but account for a third of child molesting cases.

 

I haven’t seen the arguments made by the children demanding their basic human rights to sleep with 50-70 year olds, care to post them?

All of what you just posted is a lie. Isn’t there specific religious text that talk about the punishment for being a deceiver? Let me guess, those parts don’t apply right?

Let’s recap

Children cannot consent
Animals cannot consent
5000 wives should be provided to each man as per some religious texts

 

I'm sure you could find consensual relationships.

No it isn't. The entire RCC 'pedophilia' issue is really a homosexual one, as almost all the perps and victims are male. Gays are also a tiny fraction of our population but responsible for about 60% of new AIDS cases, according to the CDC.

Yes they do, you might want to pay attention to that.

Arguments could be made just as gays do. Take God out of the picture and all you have is personal preference.

No idea what you mean here.

 

There is no such thing as natural law. It’s a philosophical concept. The 14th amendment precludes band on same sex marriage.

Refuted by this one

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows

 

LOL, how come it never occurred to anyone before? I reject the notion that people with same-sex feelings are a protected class. What next, a class of guys who like blonds?

No doubt a PC study, like the move to remove homosexuality from the APA disorder list. That was purely political, according to a former APA president.

 

I don’t understand the question? It’s always been a philosophical concept.

What you reject has no relevance to constitutional law.

They are already protected.

It’s just science. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That’s why it was removed. The study shows same sex parents raise kids just as well or better than opposite sex couples. Deal with it.

No it wasn’t.

 

So why did four SCOTUS justices vote against Obergfell?

It was removed for political reasons. The former APA head I mentioned said he was involved in counseling gays who did change their orientation, and he said it was about as treatable as anything else people are treated for. A sample of one proves his point.

This is from a lesbian woman complaining about all the politics involved in this subject:

"The problem with the American Psychological Association is clearly expressed by Lesbian feminist and university professor Camille Paglia was a guest on the Dennis Prager show, {Camilla Paglia}. Her analysis on the current trend of psychology, which she says is being destroyed by politics. She states:
“Every single gay person I know has some sort of drama going on, back in childhood. Something was happening that we’re not allowed to ask about anymore . . . I can see patterns that are similar in my background to that of other women I know who are lesbians, but the biggest patterns are in gay men. Every single gay man I know had a particular pattern where for whatever reason, he was closer to his mother than to his father, and there was some sort of distance between the mother and the father, so that she looked to her son as her real equal or friend, as the real companion of her soul. Sometimes these women were discreet and dignified. Other times, they were very theatrical and in a sense they drafted their son into their own drama. But now, you are not allowed to ask any questions about the childhood of gay people anymore. It’s called ‘homophobic’. The entire psychology establishment has shut itself down, politically . . . and also, Freud was kicked out by early feminism in the late 60s and early 70s. So all the sophistication of analysis that I knew in my college years when I went to the state university of New York – there were a group of radical young Jewish students from the New York area – they were so psychologically sophisticated in being able to analyze the family background. It’s all gone, that entire discourse is gone. Everything is political now. Families are bankrupting themselves, sending their kids to the elite schools to learn a political style of analysis (that says) ‘every single thing in the human person has been formed by some external force upon us, we are oppressed, it’s being inscribed on us’. It’s really sick. It’s a sick and stupid way of looking at human psychology . . . we are in a period now of psychological stupidity.”

Deal with my study. They can't both be right.

 

Irrelevant.

It was removed because there is no evidence it is a mental illness.

“

The study I provided refuted yours.

 

So you can’t back up your rhetoric, I didn’t think so.

And no, I can’t — because children can’t consent.

Child rape is not an act of orientation.
It is a separate classification.

Your opinion on this has already been throughly debated here by other posters and beaten to death as an anti-gay false flag. You want to use self identification to count how many gay men their are and then when a self identified heterosexual male married to a woman that engages only in heterosexual adult relationships assaults a boy you classify him as a gay rapist. You are using elementary logic to push your false narrative.

AIDS cases are dropping in virtually all MSM groups due to education — that you and your ilk have tried to ban — and new medicines. You will need a new drum to beat as AIDS becomes eradicated.

I don’t care what it says, you are the one that professes to live by the word. I think it’s made up stories, why would I pay attention to it?

Which god are you referencing? You realize there are numerous right?

Muslim religions — you are aware that other groups believe in different imaginary sky creatures, right?

 

The irony of this statement is that it can as easily be applied to those claiming to be Christian, calling the evil of persecution to be good, and the good of acceptance to be evil.

 

What Christians believe is irrelevant to civil law. Even in the case of business. Mind you, as I've said before, I do believe a private business should be able to exclude who they want, but that is not part of religious freedom, for they may have non religious reasons for doing so.

 

The problem with this argument is you ignore the principle of consenting adults. Nowhere in the concept of SSM, or even interracial marriage when these same arguments were used against it, is there any concept of including those who cannot provide informed consent.

 

With poly families becoming more open, initial studies are pointing to the same, especially since the households, assuming kitchen table poly, can have multiple incomes as needed today, and still have stay at home parents.

 

Interesting. Given that it is against "God's Law" to worship any other deity, and even not be a believer at all, how do you then account for the fact that not only were some of the founding fathers Jews and Atheists, but placed into the Constitution a guarantee of the ability to choose no religion or a non Judeo-Christian religion, in defiance of "God's Law"?

 

We already account for that in law. There is a process by which a legally underaged individual can obtain legal adulthood. It's called emancipation. Since we cannot logistically track the maturity of each individual, we set a guideline (the actual age of which has shifted, usually in an upward direction) as to when that maturity level to give informed consent occurs, and allow for exceptions, should one wish to persue it.

Conceptual error. Those who actually have pedophilia more often than not have no gender preference. Their victims are more often a manner of opportunity vs choice. That assumes a pedophile that actually acts upon their urges. Other cases of child sexual molestations occur upon the same principles as rape, i.e. an issue of power, not sexual attraction. These people are not part of the gay agenda, as you call it.

 

Greedy aren't you? Solomon only had 700 wives and concubines, and he was a highly celebrated Biblical figure.