Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Biblical Prin

[roguenuke]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Well that is not the belief of the Catholic Church.

And the Catholic Church is not the only church there is. In fact, a person within the Catholic Church could believe that it is wrong/sinful. Who are you or anyone else to tell them their beliefs must be wrong and yours right? Neither of you speak to God directly and it really isn't clear in the Bible whether it would be a sin or not. In fact, the very fact that many Christians believe that non-procreative sexual actions of any type are lustful, and therefore a sin means that the belief is there.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Why stop at two?

As marriage is now, with the laws the way they function, marriage must be limited to two, until we can find a way to adjust marriage for more than two without causing major issues with our economy and how we work things such as medical decision making laws and inheritance laws. It can be done, just not nearly as smoothly legally speaking as allowing same sex couples to marry. There is no functional change in marriage itself when you allow two people of the same sex marry the same way two people of the opposite sex do because men and women within our laws are treated almost completely the same. More than two people in a marriage are not able to be treated the same as only two people in a marriage.

 

[Cryptic]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Marriage isn't a state right. States can't forbid marriage based on the, religion, race, culture, or national origin of people. They list that right because they couldn't behave. Many states are losing the right to discriminate against sex in marriage because they are standing in the way of constitutional freedoms. They aren't behaving themselves, they are becoming despotic and dictatorial so the people must trump the state. That is the constitutional republic concept.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. If the Court felt that the definition of marriage does not contain a social component, then gay marriage and various forms of polygamy and group marriage would have been legal quite some time ago - perhaps as early as Loving vs Virginia.

Though in June, the Court may forbid a state from refusing to define marriage to exclude same sex people, I doubt the court is going to totally drop the Social component. In example, the ruling requiring that SSM be recognized will not compel states to issue marriage certificates for group and polygamous marriages.

As such, the Court is not going to back your claim that any and all people have an innate constitutional right to have the State recognize any and all relationsips as a "marriage". Though I dont think a society (represented by a state in our case) should be compelled to recognize SSM, I also realize that there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court is going to force them to.

As marriage is now, with the laws the way they function, marriage must be limited to two, until we can find a way to adjust marriage for more than two without causing major issues with our economy and how we work things such as medical decision making laws and inheritance laws. It can be done, just not nearly as smoothly legally speaking as allowing same sex couples to marry.

So, do you think that engaged in group and polygamous relationships have an inherent right to have their relationships defined by the State as "marriage"?

And In fact, the very fact that many Christians believe that non-procreative sexual actions of any type are lustful, and therefore a sin means that the belief is there.

No, many christians do not think this. Almost all, or perhaps even nearly all Christians affirm that sexual activity can be engaged in with in a heterosexual marraige purely for pleasure. Many Christians, however, hold that even sex for pleasure must be open to the possibility of producing a life and that the couple must be willing to accept such a gift.

 

[Sababa]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Biblical

The word “gender”, as it is now often misapplied to human beings, is a construct of political correctness. The proper term is “sex”. Humans, like nearly all other animals, come in two sexes (not genders)—male and female. “Gender” is a term used by those who wish to disregard the essential and critical differences between the sexes, to treat them as interchangeable, and even to uphold the idea that someone who is undeniably of one sex can “identify” as the opposite “gender”, and demand to be treated accordingly.

Marriage is a specific kind of union between two humans of the opposite sex (not gender). That is what marriage is, that is what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be. Anyone who claims otherwise is only playing the same dishonest game that goes along with the misuse of the word “gender” in other contexts.

There is so much fail in this post I really don't know where to begin, though it does get one thing correct.

Gender is a social construct, designed to understand masculinity and femininity as culturally defined. However there have been many cultures with more than two genders.

Sex is the most often referring to the morphological distinction between males and females.

Both define a category. The first is expression and the second is mostly defined physical nature. So yes you can be one sex male but have a female gender.

Confusion comes in because we use the words interchangeably in the vernacular but they have different meanings.

Marriage is a contract to create a new family. That is what it has always been at its core. Sometimes for politics and sometimes for power and sometimes just because. But to suggest marriage has been the union of two opposite sex human beings forever is funny because it is not true today. Marriages involving more than 2 people have been common historically even in what we call Western culture. There have been ceremonies to bond same-sex couples for centuries.

Tell you what....stop lecturing people and read a freaking book of history on the topic.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. If the Court felt that the definition of marriage does not contain a social component, then gay marriage and various forms of polygamy and group marriage would have been legal quite some time ago - perhaps as early as Loving vs Virginia.

Though in June, the Court may forbid a state from refusing to define marriage to exclude same sex people, I doubt the court is going to totally drop the Social component. In example, the ruling requiring that SSM be recognized will not compel states to issue marriage certificates for group and polygamous marriages.

As such, the Court is not going to back your claim that any and all people have an innate constitutional right to have the State recognize any and all relationsips as a "marriage". Though I dont think a society (represented by a state in our case) should be compelled to recognize SSM, I also realize that there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court is going to force them to.

Each issue is taken on its own merits and arguments. There are different reasons given by the state for why restrictions exist on number of spouses than for sex/gender of spouses. Just as there are different reasons given by the state for why restrictions exist on number of spouses than for race of spouses. It all comes down to the reasoning the state can give for why restrictions in laws exist and how good those reasons are in relation to furthering a state interest. And honestly, it doesn't take that much to show that a restriction could further a legitimate state interest. However, it must be consistent with the laws and how they function. The state has been unable to successfully show a legitimate state interest so far in keeping restrictions in place when it comes to same sex marriage because they are inconsistent with the way our laws work.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. If the Court felt that the definition of marriage does not contain a social component, then gay marriage and various forms of polygamy and group marriage would have been legal quite some time ago - perhaps as early as Loving vs Virginia.

Though in June, the Court may forbid a state from refusing to define marriage to exclude same sex people, I doubt the court is going to totally drop the Social component. In example, the ruling requiring that SSM be recognized will not compel states to issue marriage certificates for group and polygamous marriages.

As such, the Court is not going to back your claim that any and all people have an innate constitutional right to have the State recognize any and all relationsips as a "marriage". Though I dont think a society (represented by a state in our case) should be compelled to recognize SSM, I also realize that there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court is going to force them to.


So, do you think that engaged in group and polygamous relationships have an inherent right to have their relationships defined by the State as "marriage"?

No, many christians do not think this. Almost all, or perhaps all Christians affirm that sexual activity can be engaged in with in a heterosexual marraige purely for pleasure. Many Christians, however, hold that even sex for pleasure must be open to the possibility of producing a life and that the couple must be willing to accept such a gift.

Meh federal courts seem to be nullifying state bans on marriage.

 

[Cryptic]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Meh federal courts seem to be nullifying state bans on marriage.

That does not mean they are dropping the concept that there is a societal component in determining what relationships do, or do not constitute a marriage. Rather, they could be basing their rulings on the idea that the general consensus of society know accepts SSM, so the State should recognize it.

Then again, Rouge Nuke might be right and the only restiction is practicality

Each issue is taken on its own merits and arguments. There are different reasons given by the state for why restrictions exist on number of spouses than for sex/gender of spouses. Just as there are different reasons given by the state for why restrictions exist on number of spouses than for race of spouses. It all comes down to the reasoning the state can give for why restrictions in laws exist and how good those reasons are in relation to furthering a state interest. And honestly, it doesn't take that much to show that a restriction could further a legitimate state interest. However, it must be consistent with the laws and how they function. The state has been unable to successfully show a legitimate state interest so far in keeping restrictions in place when it comes to same sex marriage because they are inconsistent with the way our laws work.

Though I cant say I agree with your post, as you seem to imply that practicality aside, all relationships must be recognized by the State as "marriage" - I think there is a societal component, your reasoning is very clear.

My guess is that determining whether:

-There is a societal component in what is, or is not a "marraige" (my view) - or
-The only limits are the practicality of implementation as defined by a state interest (which as you said can be pretty nominal)

Would require alot of reading of cases and opinions.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

That does not mean they are dropping the concept that there is a societal component in determining what relationships do, or do not constitute a marriage. Rather, they could be basing their rulings on the idea that the general consensus of society know accepts SSM, so the State should recognize it.

well they have taken away the state's right by strumming down their marriage bans. It seems it's only a state right until it's not any more.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

So, do you think that engaged in group and polygamous relationships have an inherent right to have their relationships defined by the State as "marriage"?

There is a right to marriage because marriage because there are other rights related to equality under the law and recognized relationships. And there are limits to most rights.

For example, people have a right to adopt children, if they meet certain necessary criteria that have been deemed important to raising a child. Those criteria must be measurable and able to be defended if challenged. The state needs to be able to show that the criteria is supported by sound research. This is the key. Treating people as equally as possible under the law and being able to logically justify (using legally sound arguments) any restrictions or unequal treatment within the laws when challenged.

I have no idea if the argument I make against number of those in marriage would hold up under the law when it comes to challenges in numbers of spouses. But, I know that it is legally sound. The only question would be is it enough to justify the restriction, not whether it is a valid argument.

No, many christians do not think this. Almost all, or perhaps even nearly all Christians affirm that sexual activity can be engaged in with in a heterosexual marraige purely for pleasure. Many Christians, however, hold that even sex for pleasure must be open to the possibility of producing a life and that the couple must be willing to accept such a gift.

I can find plenty of Catholics and even those of other religions that consider masturbation to be a sin. It would be lustful, especially since it is not being done with a spouse. In fact, oral sex and anal sex, even when done within marriage is considered sinful by some, if not many.

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Polls on Evangelicals and Masturbation / Are Evangelicals Addicted to Porn and Involved in Sexual Sin on a Large Scale?

Neither anal nor oral sex is able to "produce life". So, how can they not be sinful, even within a marriage given that criteria?

You are talking in terms of religion, while I am talking in terms of people. And there are many people who judge others much more harshly than they would themselves. They will justify their own actions some other way.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Biblical

So, you're going with semantics, then. Ok. Replace the word "gender" in my post with "sex."

Your argument is now satisfied. So do you now agree that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, or was this post of yours just completely useless?

No, I do not agree.

Whatever other semantic games you play, marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is not, and never will be genuine marriage.

Nothing in the Constitution demands that something be called what it is not.

 

[AJiveMan]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Biblical

Let me get this straight. Two gay looking guys who have a show on Homo $ Gay TV are surprised that their show got cancelled after they bashed gays. Really?

Must have something to do with A&E network affiliation? Neither do research when putting on a series?

Dog the bounty hunter

Duck dynasty

 

[Cryptic]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

I can find plenty of Catholics and even those of other religions that consider masturbation to be a sin.

Yes, but masturbation does not involve a partner in a hetersexual marriage, so yes, it is sinful- as are other sex acts done outside of marriage.

I can find plenty of Catholics and even those of other religions that consider masturbation to be a sin. It would be lustful, especially since it is not being done with a spouse. In fact, oral sex and anal sex, even when done within marriage is considered sinful by some, if not many.

The Catholic church does not consider oral and anal sex (not that I understand why people are attracted to anal sex) to be inherently sinful per se. Such activities with in a marriage are neither affirmed nor condoned in and of themselves.

Rather, sinfulness would depend on the intent of the activities. If such activities were the only actvities the couple engaged in and the intent was to avoid the possibility of children, then such activities would be seen as sinful.

As a reference, the Psalm or Psalms / Song of Solomon contains numerous references to sex, and several references to oral sex in particular. That does not mean the activity is exhorted, rather it means that it could be permissible under certain circumstances.

well they have taken away the state's right by strumming down their marriage bans. It seems it's only a state right until it's not any more.

Yes, that is true. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to decide.

 

[Slyhunter]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

No, a business decision is being made. HGTV has like eight shows of the same nature that don't have actors who do things that might hurt the company image. When advertisers start to avoid your show, it costs the network money. People who think this decision or the Duck Dynasty situation were about anything other than money are foolish.

It is my opinion that having gay's on your show hurts your image therefore there should be no problem if I fire any faggets in my employee.

 

[sangha]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

It is my opinion that having gay's on your show hurts your image therefore there should be no problem if I fire any faggets in my employee.

Being in Florida means there's a good chance that such bigotry is not illegal

You must be thrilled

 

[Deuce]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Biblical

No, I do not agree.

Whatever other semantic games you play, marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is not, and never will be genuine marriage.

Nothing in the Constitution demands that something be called what it is not.

No, yours is literally the semantic argument. You quibbled over "gender" vs "se ," when you knew full well what I was talking about, and even now you're talking about "something be called what it is not." This is literally arguing over semantics. You are doing this. I am not.

I am arguing over actions. How the government treats it's citizens. It doesn't matter what word you use, the government doesn't have the authority to define any legal contract as between a man and a woman unless it can satisfy the test of the 14th amendment. Your belief, my belief, your tradition, my tradition, your definition, my definition, all irrelevant to the discussion. The constitutional issue is a discussion about what the government can and cannot do. It doesn't matter which word the government uses to describe this legal contract, the distinction of gender is something that can be challenged under the 14th amendment. If the government fails to pass the test, the distinction is unconstitutional.

I know you have a religious connection to the word, but from the perspective of the government that isn't relevant. Atheists can still get married. People who have never even met before can get married. People with no interest, or no ability to have children can get married. Your religious belief is not something you get to force upon others.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

It is my opinion that having gay's on your show hurts your image therefore there should be no problem if I fire any faggets in my employee.

If you were in the television industry and made a decision like this, odds are you wouldn't be in the television industry for very long. Free market sorts itself out, right? I know you're really upset about this particular outcome of the free market, but thems the breaks dude. The customers have spoken. I don't like how my cable company does that bundling bull**** but it works for their business so that's what they offer.

 

[Slyhunter]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Being in Florida means there's a good chance that such bigotry is not illegal

You must be thrilled

If it's ok to fire Christians because they are christians it should be ok to fire fags for being fags.

 

[sangha]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

If it's ok to fire Christians because they are christians it should be ok to fire fags for being fags.

Ahh, the ole "one slap on the cheek deserves another". I remember Jesus talking about that.

They weren't fired for being christians.

It's unchristian to lie

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

If you were in the television industry and made a decision like this, odds are you wouldn't be in the television industry for very long. Free market sorts itself out, right?

Got to love the free market.

I really love it when people only support free market concepts when it supports their opinion.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Ahh, the ole "one slap on the cheek deserves another". I remember Jesus talking about that.

They weren't fired for being christians.

It's unchristian to lie

They were fired for having an opinion, I think it's a bit extreme but I don't own HGTV so it isn't my call

 

[Deuce]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Got to love the free market.

I really love it when people only support free market concepts when it supports their opinion.

Right. Like the conservatives bitching every time a business supports the gay agenda and clamoring that their first amendment right (to someone else's television network) is being suppressed.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Yes, but masturbation does not involve a partner in a hetersexual marriage, so yes, it is sinful- as are other sex acts done outside of marriage.

The Catholic church does not consider oral and anal sex (not that I understand why people are attracted to anal sex) to be inherently sinful per se. Such activities with in a marriage are neither affirmed nor condoned in and of themselves.

Rather, sinfulness would depend on the intent of the activities. If such activities were the only actvities the couple engaged in and the intent was to avoid the possibility of children, then such activities would be seen as sinful.

As a reference, the Psalm or Psalms / Song of Solomon contains numerous references to sex, and several references to oral sex in particular. That does not mean the activity is exhorted, rather it means that it could be permissible under certain circumstances.

Yes, that is true. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to decide.

Two things.

First, you are admitting that at least at times, those sexual acts are sinful. And masturbation can be mutual or it can be married people who are apart (such as military members and their spouses). Those instances are still within marriage. But as with those other forms of sex I mentioned, the intent is normally to avoid sex that would lead to pregnancy. (BTW, not all Christians are Catholics, and in fact, not all Catholics believe those things are really sins. It all depends on the individual beliefs of each person.)

Second, the SCOTUS has already decided at least three times that marriage is not completely able to be decided by the states. Loving v VA, Zablocki v Redhail, and Turner v Safley. All three cases struck down state restrictions on marriage.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

If it's ok to fire Christians because they are christians it should be ok to fire fags for being fags.

Christians are under attack...You can say anything you want about Christians without any retribution...Heaven forbid Don't ever say anything against gays or Islam though...Talk about a double standard.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Right. Like the conservatives bitching every time a business supports the gay agenda and clamoring that their first amendment right (to someone else's television network) is being suppressed.

Yeah it's rather ridiculous.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Benham Brothers Speak Out on HGTV Show Being Canned: We're Committed to Bibli...

Christians are under attack...You can say anything you want about Christians without any retribution...Heaven forbid Don't ever say anything against gays or Islam though...Talk about a double standard.

Yes I do believe that it is popular to take potshots at Christians and nobody seems to care. But fur the past two centuries we have heard all about why God hates what a particular political platform hates. And God always seems to agree with it.

If Christians didn't put their religion on the butcher block in the first place and pervert it into a political party it likely wouldn't be treated like one. Nothing on the butcher block is safe from the knife. But Pandora's box is already opened.