The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy

[lovemeorhateme]

Having it better isn't the bar. If you were a black man in Selma in the 50s you never had it so good compared to your great grandfather, but better wasn't the bar. If you were a woman the year before Suffrage won the day you never had it so good compared to a women a few generations before that, and so on.

Ahhh the old race card again. See, sexuality and race are nothing alike and after a while one tends to get tired of hearing this same comparison made over and over again, ad nauseum.

Race is something one is born with and has absolutely no control over. It is a physical, immutable characteristic. There is no evidence which demonstrates people are born homosexual. Besides which, homosexuality is concerned with how someone behaves; how someone thinks and what they choose to do.

Some likely would, but they'd be irrational and the law shouldn't accommodate them.

I would say it's more than some, I would say it's the majority. Once doesn't need to have been part of the homosexual community for too long to know that the majority have an absolute disdain for Christians. So as far as the majority are concerned, they would say that the homosexual baker should be allowed to refuse but the Christian baker should not. It seems both you and I agree that this is an inconsistent position to hold to. The difference is I believe they should both be allowed to refuse service, you believe that neither should.

No, they're both wrong it they customarily allow their patrons to have slogans put on their cakes.

Why are they both wrong? Where does one draw the line? Should someone be compelled to print a slogan in support of a particular political party or cause if they strongly disagree with it?

And the opposing activist would declare his conscience being violated and his support being forced and they'd both be wrong to enforce that notion at law. So let's argue against irrational enforcement of subjective value and support a rational rule of law.

Go tell that to homosexual activists.

Same sort of thing from many zealots on the other side of it.

I didn't deny that, I'm just pointing out there are crazies on both sides.

Well, those at the radical end are going to call you that. Likely others who aren't might be put off by the "never had it so good" approach and I think you could understand that.

Unfortunately these days most are leaning towards the radical end. As for my approach, this is a web forum to share ones views. I'm not one to walk up to a homosexual and start insulting them or try to impose my opinions on them. I'm one to love them, talk about the hope I have found in Christ and do this with both gentleness and respect.

Then you'd have perpetuated a segregated South (and parts elsewhere) for generations. That sort of latitude promotes an unintended tyranny of the majority, which is one reason we're not a democracy. Another problem is your private business will utilize and benefit by public works. That is, you are taking benefit from programs and services and support from tax dollars, many of which will be supplied by people who don't agree with you.

No, I would have advocated a different approach to dealing with that problem. But once again, this isn't about race.

Same answer. If you don't have a problem writing a Catholic slogan or a Rotarian slogan on your work then you're in the business of putting things on your cake with or without your tacit approval of the ideas or parties.

There is a difference between doing something without your 'tacit approval' and being forced to do something which you seriously disapprove of.

lain: Like suggesting midgets have the same right to make the Air Force height requirement. Why even bother saying that?

Do you believe that it is possible for homosexuals to change? Do you even believe they need to change?

But given only the irrational could argue for that inequity and it isn't the actual point of any serious consideration of the actual laws and how they're examined why spend any real time on it? It's a bit like the conspiracy theorists for the most part. We know they're there, understand a lot of what they're saying and it moves and alters nothing at all. So outside of the novelty it gives the impression or can of someone attempting to taint a legitimate point by associating it with something no reasonable person would consider.

Are you admitting that most homosexuals are irrational? Because from much past experience I am very sure that the majority believe that there should be an inequity before the law and I've given you the example.

 

[resodko]

Ahhh the old race card again. See, sexuality and race are nothing alike and after a while one tends to get tired of hearing this same comparison made over and over again ad nauseum.

it's a lie that scumbags like traci push to tar those who oppose perversion


town should know better

 

[Town Heretic]

Ahhh the old race card again.

Only as a parallel on the point of a group bound by identity in relation to a majority bound by another.

I thought you might roll eyes and so I noted what I was actually paralleling by including women.

See, sexuality and race are nothing alike

They don't have to be except in terms of how they are treated by and relate to the empowered majority, which remains my point. And in that sense the parallel is fairly strong. I'm not arguing over genetic predisposition or determination.

and after a while one tends to get tired of hearing this same comparison made over and over again ad nauseum.

You think your declarations are novel? Now we can address the issues or lament our mutual lack of originality on the points raised. What say you?

Race is something one is born with and has absolutely no control over. It is a physical, immutable characteristic.

Of course. It's also a mostly manufactured distinction in terms of how we value across race, which is more to the point. That is, some white fellow or Asian, etc. looked at someone of a different color and decided they were inferior and a lot of grief came from that arbitrary, culturally induced distinction.

There is no evidence which demonstrates people are born homosexual.

Sure there is. It's just not absolute or objectively proven at this point. We have numerous examples of people whose earliest sexual awakenings are inclined toward the same sex. We have the argument FROM heterosexuality, by which I mean a great many of us awaken sexually with a clear path to the opposite sex and cannot imagine or awaken in ourselves the desire for the same sex, just as there seem to be a number of people who have no particular inclination other than a sexual one without regard for particular gender in relation. Given that it doesn't seem unreasonable to infer an opposite response for that minority and to take the word of those who began their sexual life inclined to the same.

A minority of people are inclined to all sorts of things, like alcoholism. I'd suggest the only reason some people fight over it from the heterosexual side is that if its understood to be genetic then it becomes harder to be as aggressively antagonistic on the point. That is, if a fellow is compelled to do a thing we may still hold the thing in contempt but the fellow is necessarily more sympathetic. But if he just wants to do it, then contempt and anger become more likely for both the fellow and the act, as it would with a thief.

Besides which, homosexuality is concerned with how someone behaves; how someone thinks and what they choose to do.

So is religion. Is it less protected because you weren't born Protestant or Catholic?

I would say it's more than some, I would say it's the majority.

It doesn't matter if most do or don't see it as you believe they do, since that shouldn't influence the law and right.

Once doesn't need to have been part of the homosexual community for too long to know that the majority have an absolute disdain for Christians.

I think there is a disdain for a certain type of Christian, to be sure. Else, it's another extension of feeling and I'm not going to try to argue you out of your anecdote, only note it isn't established as fact and in any event doesn't really control any point we're arguing.

So as far as the majority are concerned, they would say that the homosexual baker should be allowed to refuse but the Christian baker should not. It seems both you and I agree that this is an inconsistent position to hold to. The difference is I believe they should both be allowed to refuse service, you believe that neither should.

Right and I've tried to give you a window as to why, the way that, historically, has allowed a monopoly of privilege and power to be held by a few and withheld from others. That's fundamentally opposed to our way of life. So the attack isn't against freedom, but the against an attempt to limit that very thing in the name of freedom.

Why are they both wrong?

Supra.

Where does one draw the line? Should someone be compelled to print a slogan in support of a particular political party or cause if they strongly disagree with it?

Yes, if you're a printer. And yes, if you're a baker who as a part of their service provides the opportunity for clients to print any lawful thing that will fit on a cake.

Go tell that to homosexual activists.

I'm telling everyone/or I don't have to since I'm arguing about how the law should and must function, not whether or not there are extremists of any stripe (and there are) who would alter that an inadvertently invite the thing that might one day put its foot on their neck and impede their freedoms for no other reason than someone is willing to hold them in contempt.

I didn't deny that, I'm just pointing out there are crazies on both sides.

To be sure. A point of balance I've been making as often as I can.

I'm not one to walk up to a homosexual and start insulting them or try to impose my opinions on them. I'm one to love them, talk about the hope I have found in Christ and do this with both gentleness and respect.

I think that's a great way to approach anyone in bondage to sin. :thumb:

No, I would have advocated a different approach to dealing with that problem. But once again, this isn't about race.

And once again, my example isn't "about" race. I'm noting a parallel between the empowered and the less than. That's the extent or the parallel in principle.

I wrote: If you don't have a problem writing a Catholic slogan or a Rotarian slogan on your work then you're in the business of putting things on your cake with or without your tacit approval of the ideas or parties.

There is a difference between doing something without your 'tacit approval' and being forced to do something which you seriously disapprove of.

What I noted was your writing a thing down that you don't believe is true because the person you're writing it for does. So you're being "forced" to provide for one what you provide for another. Neither is an endorsement except in the mind of the party determined to be offended by the effort. It's an imaginary complaint, which is why I distinguished between asked to write "Archer Bakery Supports..." and "Go Gay Marriage" by way of example.

Do you believe that it is possible for homosexuals to change? Do you even believe they need to change?

On the former, I've heard more than one person who was one say yes, though I suspect when that happens the person is more likely bisexual in inclination than not. I say that because I can imagine there are homosexuals who could no more become hetero than I could contemplate homosexuality. And I expect, again, there are many in the middle, inclined one way or the other who are open to committing to either one.

Need to change? I'd say if their inclination is locked then they need to abstain. If they are in the group who can change then it would be preferable, provided they intended to reserve sex for a committed, marital estate. Because I don't see a dime's difference between a fornicating heterosexual and a homosexual. Sex outside of its intent is a moral ill and inside of it a blessing.

Are you admitting that most homosexuals are irrational?

Of course not.

Because from much past experience I am very sure that the majority believe that there should be an inequity before the law and I've given you the example.

Your experience can't constitute a rule, only at best an expression of the rule that can be established objectively, assuming it matches. Again, it doesn't impact my point. If every conservative or liberal was mad as a march hare on a particular it wouldn't impact or alter their right to be and to parade that particular as knowledge or belief.

:e4e:

 

[noguru]

Only as a parallel on the point of a group bound by identity in relation to a majority bound by another.

I thought you might roll eyes and so I noted what I was actually paralleling by including women.


They don't have to be except in terms of how they are treated by and relate to the empowered majority, which remains my point. And in that sense the parallel is fairly strong. I'm not arguing over genetic predisposition or determination.


You think your declarations are novel? Now we can address the issues or lament our mutual lack of originality on the points raised. What say you?


Of course. It's also a mostly manufactured distinction in terms of how we value across race, which is more to the point. That is, some white fellow or Asian, etc. looked at someone of a different color and decided they were inferior and a lot of grief came from that arbitrary, culturally induced distinction.



Sure there is. It's just not absolute or objectively proven at this point. We have numerous examples of people whose earliest sexual awakenings are inclined toward the same sex. We have the argument FROM heterosexuality, by which I mean a great many of us awaken sexually with a clear path to the opposite sex and cannot imagine or awaken in ourselves the desire for the same sex, just as there seem to be a number of people who have no particular inclination other than a sexual one without regard for particular gender in relation. Given that it doesn't seem unreasonable to infer an opposite response for that minority and to take the word of those who began their sexual life inclined to the same.

A minority of people are inclined to all sorts of things, like alcoholism. I'd suggest the only reason some people fight over it from the heterosexual side is that if its understood to be genetic then it becomes harder to be as aggressively antagonistic on the point. That is, if a fellow is compelled to do a thing we may still hold the thing in contempt but the fellow is necessarily more sympathetic. But if he just wants to do it, then contempt and anger become more likely for both the fellow and the act, as it would with a thief.


So is religion. Is it less protected because you weren't born Protestant or Catholic?


It doesn't matter if most do or don't see it as you believe they do, since that shouldn't influence the law and right.


I think there is a disdain for a certain type of Christian, to be sure. Else, it's another extension of feeling and I'm not going to try to argue you out of your anecdote, only note it isn't established as fact and in any event doesn't really control any point we're arguing.


Right and I've tried to give you a window as to why, the way that, historically, has allowed a monopoly of privilege and power to be held by a few and withheld from others. That's fundamentally opposed to our way of life. So the attack isn't against freedom, but the against an attempt to limit that very thing in the name of freedom.


Supra.


Yes, if you're a printer. And yes, if you're a baker who as a part of their service provides the opportunity for clients to print any lawful thing that will fit on a cake.


I'm telling everyone/or I don't have to since I'm arguing about how the law should and must function, not whether or not there are extremists of any stripe (and there are) who would alter that an inadvertently invite the thing that might one day put its foot on their neck and impede their freedoms for no other reason than someone is willing to hold them in contempt.


To be sure. A point of balance I've been making as often as I can.


I think that's a great way to approach anyone in bondage to sin. :thumb:


And once again, my example isn't "about" race. I'm noting a parallel between the empowered and the less than. That's the extent or the parallel in principle.

I wrote: If you don't have a problem writing a Catholic slogan or a Rotarian slogan on your work then you're in the business of putting things on your cake with or without your tacit approval of the ideas or parties.

What I noted was your writing a thing down that you don't believe is true because the person you're writing it for does. So you're being "forced" to provide for one what you provide for another. Neither is an endorsement except in the mind of the party determined to be offended by the effort. It's an imaginary complaint, which is why I distinguished between asked to write "Archer Bakery Supports..." and "Go Gay Marriage" by way of example.


On the former, I've heard more than one person who was one say yes, though I suspect when that happens the person is more likely bisexual in inclination than not. I say that because I can imagine there are homosexuals who could no more become hetero than I could contemplate homosexuality. And I expect, again, there are many in the middle, inclined one way or the other who are open to committing to either one.

Need to change? I'd say if their inclination is locked then they need to abstain. If they are in the group who can change then it would be preferable, provided they intended to reserve sex for a committed, marital estate. Because I don't see a dime's difference between a fornicating heterosexual and a homosexual. Sex outside of its intent is a moral ill and inside of it a blessing.


Of course not.


Your experience can't constitute a rule, only at best an expression of the rule that can be established objectively, assuming it matches. Again, it doesn't impact my point. If every conservative or liberal was mad as a march hare on a particular it wouldn't impact or alter their right to be and to parade that particular as knowledge or belief.

:e4e:

Resodko and his crew of jokers do not understand "credibility" and how it is achieved. If a person has a track record of not reporting things accurately then their credibility suffers. This is an across the board issue. If a person is not credible in regard to one or many subjects, then any subject they address starts to become suspect. And I am not saying a person should be held accountable for subjects in which they are not well versed. Part of credibility is the courage to have the honesty to admit our current limitations when they are relevant to any matter at hand.

As much as they try to prop up their credibility by claiming to be Christian, the more one has to wonder whether that is a reliable statement as well.

 

[resodko]

Resodko and his crew of jokers

i have a crew of jokers? :idunno:

not very well trained, apparently :sibbie:

do not understand "credibility" and how it is achieved. If a person has a track record of not reporting things accurately then their credibility suffers. This is an across the board issue. If a person is not credible in regard to one or many subjects, then any subject they address starts to become suspect. And I am not saying a person should be held accountable for subjects in which they are not well versed. Part of credibility is the courage to have the honesty to admit our current limitations when they are relevant to any matter at hand.

As much as they try to prop up their credibility by claiming to be Christian, the more one has to wonder whether that is a reliable statement as well.

what made you go off on a rant about credibility?

 

[noguru]

i have a crew of jokers? :idunno:

not very well trained, apparently :sibbie:

It is a very loose affiliation, which results from trying to tow the "conservative Christian" party line advertised as such on media including the internet. You don't think too much about things, and you like it that way. You are "keepin it real".

what made you go off on a rant about credibility?

You and your transparent antics.

Its not a rant. You just label every criticism you do not like about yourself from others as "a rant". This way you think you are minimizing the accuracy of the criticism. But you are the only one fooled by your strategy.

 

[resodko]

It is a very loose affiliation, which results from trying to tow...

:doh: "toe"

the "conservative Christian" party line advertised as such on media including the internet.

where can i find this advertised?

is it on sale?

You don't think too much about things

thinking too much hurts

i have to save the pain for my studying

big test saturday on cardiology and pharmacology

, and you like it that way.

darn tootin'!

You are "keepin it real".

:thumb:

You and your transparent antics.

and here i was, thinking they were opaque

 

[Jedidiah]

...sexuality and race are nothing alike...

...They don't have to be except in terms of how they are treated by and relate to the empowered majority, which remains my point. And in that sense the parallel is fairly strong. I'm not arguing over genetic predisposition or determination....

I have a right, a civil right, to be able to sit on any of the same seats on a bus as anybody else. I have a right not have establishments have separate drinking fountains and rest rooms for me; I have a right to use the same facilities as everybody else. If my right here is violated, it would bother me, and it would bother me if it were violated for anybody else too.

It turns out, I also have "a civil right to marry another man."

I don't care that this latter civil right is violated, not in the least, because exercising this particular civil right is a sin. And that 1.6% of Americans who really, really care if my civil right to marry another man is violated, it doesn't concern me either, for the same reason. If it were 91.6%, I still wouldn't feel any differently.

Unless I was in that 91.6% who wanted to marry another man; then I probably would feel differently, very differently, but there again, it's still sin.

...There is no evidence which demonstrates people are born homosexual...

...Sure there is. It's just not absolute or objectively proven at this point. We have numerous examples of people whose earliest sexual awakenings are inclined toward the same sex. We have the argument FROM heterosexuality, by which I mean a great many of us awaken sexually with a clear path to the opposite sex and cannot imagine or awaken in ourselves the desire for the same sex, just as there seem to be a number of people who have no particular inclination other than a sexual one without regard for particular gender in relation. Given that it doesn't seem unreasonable to infer an opposite response for that minority and to take the word of those who began their sexual life inclined to the same.

A minority of people are inclined to all sorts of things, like alcoholism. I'd suggest the only reason some people fight over it from the heterosexual side is that if its understood to be genetic then it becomes harder to be as aggressively antagonistic on the point. That is, if a fellow is compelled to do a thing we may still hold the thing in contempt but the fellow is necessarily more sympathetic. But if he just wants to do it, then contempt and anger become more likely for both the fellow and the act, as it would with a thief...

It is a known fact that exposure to LGBTQ pornography can make somebody LGBTQ, who were not previously LGBTQ. Therefore, we know objectively that "sexual orientation" is changeable. We can argue about whether or not it is an irreversible change of course, and I think that this is one of the key issues facing the Church right now.

If we grant for the sake of discussion that -- apart from any sin that they are exposed to -- certain children are "born with" LGBTQ proclivities or leanings so that when they reach puberty their eyes are "naturally" drawn to LGBTQ things, then we still as Bible believing Christians must say that LGBTQ behavior is sinning, sinful, sin; in the same way that -- habitual or otherwise -- drunkenness or adultery is.

...Do you believe that it is possible for homosexuals to change? Do you even believe they need to change?...

...On the former, I've heard more than one person who was one say yes, though I suspect when that happens the person is more likely bisexual in inclination than not...

Can our brains un-learn sin ? I believe that they can, through believing the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Scripture indicates that LGBTQ proclivities are evidence of a mental wound, and it's quite different to talk about somebody whose wound has healed, versus someone who was never wounded in that particular way.

Some people have had broken bones, and others have not. Wounds heal, and scars remain.

BTW I find it interesting that Our Lord's resurrected, glorified body retained the scars/wounds from His crucifixion. I wonder if my glorified body will retain the scars that this body has ? Anyway...

...I say that because I can imagine there are homosexuals who could no more become hetero than I could contemplate homosexuality...

Again, it's been shown that this doesn't matter. Exposure to LGBTQ pornography can change you. And I don't mean that we're all secretly LGBTQ, just that we're all human, and that to which any one of us can succumb, we can all succumb in potential. I don't see any classifications among sinners in the Scripture either, especially as regards the Gospel of Our Lord.

...Need to change? I'd say if their inclination is locked then they need to abstain...

This is basically saying, "They need to obey." I would condition this with, "If they want to commune with other believers in a New Testament church community." If this latter thing is not in view, then I believe that Our Lord deals with us each as He sees fit, and if we're not particularly interested in communion right now, He deals with that. We are His servants, and it is to Him only that we rise or fall.

...If they are in the group who can change then it would be preferable, provided they intended to reserve sex for a committed, marital estate. Because I don't see a dime's difference between a fornicating heterosexual and a homosexual. Sex outside of its intent is a moral ill and inside of it a blessing....

Amen.

 

[resodko]

....I don't see a dime's difference between a fornicating heterosexual and a homosexual.

are fornicating heterosexuals seeking societal approval?

are fornicating heterosexuals marching for their "rights"?

are fornicating heterosexuals forcing changes in elementary and secondary school curricula to teach the youth of america that their perversion is "normal"?

are fornicating heterosexuals demanding that bakers who happen to be Christian work against their consciences and create cakes for them celebrating their perversion?





'cause if they aren't, you're not looking hard enough

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Only as a parallel on the point of a group bound by identity in relation to a majority bound by another.

I thought you might roll eyes and so I noted what I was actually paralleling by including women.

Yet the nature of the identity of race or gender is a physical characteristic with which one is born, the same cannot be said for homosexuals.

They don't have to be except in terms of how they are treated by and relate to the empowered majority, which remains my point. And in that sense the parallel is fairly strong. I'm not arguing over genetic predisposition or determination.

As race and sexuality are very different, why should they be treated the same?

You think your declarations are novel? Now we can address the issues or lament our mutual lack of originality on the points raised. What say you?

No, I don't believe they are novel, but I do believe they are right. It takes a very uncritical mind to accept the rhetoric of gay rights activists that race and sexuality are equivalent and should be treated as such. That seems to be the crux of your argument.

Of course. It's also a mostly manufactured distinction in terms of how we value across race, which is more to the point. That is, some white fellow or Asian, etc. looked at someone of a different color and decided they were inferior and a lot of grief came from that arbitrary, culturally induced distinction.

I tend to agree with you here. Indeed, the distinction between the races is manufactured. We may look aesthetically different, and that is how many have judged other races in the past; yet inside we are the same. That being said, race doesn't apply to the points I've been making much as you seem to think it does.

Sure there is. It's just not absolute or objectively proven at this point. We have numerous examples of people whose earliest sexual awakenings are inclined toward the same sex. We have the argument FROM heterosexuality, by which I mean a great many of us awaken sexually with a clear path to the opposite sex and cannot imagine or awaken in ourselves the desire for the same sex, just as there seem to be a number of people who have no particular inclination other than a sexual one without regard for particular gender in relation. Given that it doesn't seem unreasonable to infer an opposite response for that minority and to take the word of those who began their sexual life inclined to the same.

A minority of people are inclined to all sorts of things, like alcoholism. I'd suggest the only reason some people fight over it from the heterosexual side is that if its understood to be genetic then it becomes harder to be as aggressively antagonistic on the point. That is, if a fellow is compelled to do a thing we may still hold the thing in contempt but the fellow is necessarily more sympathetic. But if he just wants to do it, then contempt and anger become more likely for both the fellow and the act, as it would with a thief.

As you said, there is no objective proof that one is born a homosexual and I seriously question that notion. I belive there is a lot more psychology involved in the development of homosexuality in someone's life. In my own case, I believe that abuse was the biggest contributing factor. In any case, having an inclination towards something is not justification acting upon that inclination and then demanding that others approve of one's actions.

Indeed, different people seem to be predisposed towards different sins. Some struggle more with certain sins than others. For some it's alcoholism, for others lust, or stealing, or homosexuality etc. But that does not mean that one is genetically predisposed towards that sin. Gays aren't the only one's saying they were 'born that way', and so if your argument above was applied to certain others groups the results could be truly terrifying.

So is religion. Is it less protected because you weren't born Protestant or Catholic?

I don't question that. I question the assertion that sexuality is any more than behaviour and thinking, contrary to what many would say. That was my point.

It doesn't matter if most do or don't see it as you believe they do, since that shouldn't influence the law and right.

It goes to my point that many homosexuals are intolerant and wish to impose their views on Christians.

I think there is a disdain for a certain type of Christian, to be sure. Else, it's another extension of feeling and I'm not going to try to argue you out of your anecdote, only note it isn't established as fact and in any event doesn't really control any point we're arguing.

There's a lot disdain for Christianity as a whole within that community.

Right and I've tried to give you a window as to why, the way that, historically, has allowed a monopoly of privilege and power to be held by a few and withheld from others. That's fundamentally opposed to our way of life. So the attack isn't against freedom, but the against an attempt to limit that very thing in the name of freedom.

The problem is that it is not right, fair or just to be compelled to do something against your conscience. It is an imposition by one group upon the other.

Yes, if you're a printer. And yes, if you're a baker who as a part of their service provides the opportunity for clients to print any lawful thing that will fit on a cake.

Where do you draw the line? Or do you think they should be legally compelled to write or print absolutely anything?

I'm telling everyone/or I don't have to since I'm arguing about how the law should and must function, not whether or not there are extremists of any stripe (and there are) who would alter that an inadvertently invite the thing that might one day put its foot on their neck and impede their freedoms for no other reason than someone is willing to hold them in contempt.

To be sure. A point of balance I've been making as often as I can.

I think that's a great way to approach anyone in bondage to sin. :thumb:

And once again, my example isn't "about" race. I'm noting a parallel between the empowered and the less than. That's the extent or the parallel in principle.

Do you believe in the empowerment of sin? There is no comparison because of the reasons I have stated above. What you are arguing for now seems to be that those who choose to identify with a certain sin are less empowered and should become more empowered.

I wrote: If you don't have a problem writing a Catholic slogan or a Rotarian slogan on your work then you're in the business of putting things on your cake with or without your tacit approval of the ideas or parties.

What I noted was your writing a thing down that you don't believe is true because the person you're writing it for does. So you're being "forced" to provide for one what you provide for another. Neither is an endorsement except in the mind of the party determined to be offended by the effort. It's an imaginary complaint, which is why I distinguished between asked to write "Archer Bakery Supports..." and "Go Gay Marriage" by way of example.

You are being forced if you are being told to do something you actively disagree with or face prosecution. What kind of a choice is that? Or are you suggesting that those who have deeply held Christian beliefs who may face this choice should just get out of business altogether?

On the former, I've heard more than one person who was one say yes, though I suspect when that happens the person is more likely bisexual in inclination than not. I say that because I can imagine there are homosexuals who could no more become hetero than I could contemplate homosexuality. And I expect, again, there are many in the middle, inclined one way or the other who are open to committing to either one.

I feel that giving them a label such as 'bisexual' doesn't help anyone. It seems we at least partly agree here. For some the battle is more difficult than others. I completely understand that.

Need to change? I'd say if their inclination is locked then they need to abstain. If they are in the group who can change then it would be preferable, provided they intended to reserve sex for a committed, marital estate. Because I don't see a dime's difference between a fornicating heterosexual and a homosexual. Sex outside of its intent is a moral ill and inside of it a blessing.

So we do at least agree that homosexual activity is a sin? If that is the case, why are you defending it so vigorously?

Of course not.

Your experience can't constitute a rule, only at best an expression of the rule that can be established objectively, assuming it matches. Again, it doesn't impact my point. If every conservative or liberal was mad as a march hare on a particular it wouldn't impact or alter their right to be and to parade that particular as knowledge or belief.

:e4e:

While my experience cannot constitute a rule, it can easily help shape one's views. Especially when most other people who are in the position of having stopped living a homosexual lifestyle all seem to echo very similar experiences.

 

[Town Heretic]

...It turns out, I also have "a civil right to marry another man."

I don't care that this latter civil right is violated, not in the least, because exercising this particular civil right is a sin.

No, you have a right to contract with the state in marriage, regardless of your gender or the gender of your mate. And you do care if that's violated.

And that 1.6% of Americans who really, really care if my civil right to marry another man is violated, it doesn't concern me either, for the same reason. If it were 91.6%, I still wouldn't feel any differently.

When rights only matter in numbers they cease to be rights at all.

It is a known fact that exposure to LGBTQ pornography can make somebody LGBTQ, who were not previously LGBTQ.

I don't think that's true, unless you were bisexually inclined or not particularly gender inclined, depending on how you want to view it. In any event it doesn't really have much to do with the subject.

Therefore, we know objectively that "sexual orientation" is changeable.

No, if that were true we'd know that, as I suggested, it's true for some, a some I'd suspect were more closely identified as bisexual in orientation from the outset, at least by inclination.

If we grant for the sake of discussion that -- apart from any sin that they are exposed to -- certain children are "born with" LGBTQ proclivities or leanings so that when they reach puberty their eyes are "naturally" drawn to LGBTQ things, then we still as Bible believing Christians must say that LGBTQ behavior is sinning, sinful, sin; in the same way that -- habitual or otherwise -- drunkenness or adultery is.

I mentioned that as with alcoholism a minority of people are drawn to all sorts of things, predisposed to them. I've never understood what sort of victory is had in naming a thing genetic if the thing isn't desirable. And you won't get an argument from me about the morality of the question, which has nothing to do with the legal side of it.

People have a right to do all sorts of things that are sinful.

Can our brains un-learn sin ? I believe that they can, through believing the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe we can improve our conduct by finding our pleasure in the good, but we'll never be perfect and always require grace since any sin is one too many.

BTW I find it interesting that Our Lord's resurrected, glorified body retained the scars/wounds from His crucifixion. I wonder if my glorified body will retain the scars that this body has?

Don't you think the scars were in place to help the apostles come to terms with the truth of the resurrection?

are fornicating heterosexuals seeking societal approval?

You must not own a television. They not only have it, it's celebrated in most sitcoms. But given they aren't having any particular desire thwarted as a matter of law it's a non parallel on the point.

are fornicating heterosexuals marching for their "rights"?

They would if their right to wed was denied them by a homosexual majority, as Christians would protest if their right to assembly was denied them by militant atheists and so on.

are fornicating heterosexuals forcing changes in elementary and secondary school curricula to teach the youth of america that their perversion is "normal"?

Different issue, where it exists. It doesn't in my state and if someone attempted it then it would be met with opposition. Hopefully of the reasoned sort.

are fornicating heterosexuals demanding that bakers who happen to be Christian work against their consciences and create cakes for them celebrating their perversion?

I think that's a strained and invented cause, as per my answer on the point to lmohm.

 

[resodko]

.... it's a non parallel on the point.

Different issue...

I think that's a strained and invented cause....

looks like you're too invested in defending homosexuality to actually read


get yer glasses on and take a squint at your retarded comment that i was responding to

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is a known fact that exposure to LGBTQ pornography can make somebody LGBTQ, who were not previously LGBTQ. Therefore, we know objectively that "sexual orientation" is changeable. We can argue about whether or not it is an irreversible change of course, and I think that this is one of the key issues facing the Church right now.

Can you cite a source for this "fact"? Otherwise it's like saying having an aversion to paint fumes can be altered by viewing 'Dulux' commercials...

 

[Town Heretic]

Yet the nature of the identity of race or gender is a physical characteristic with which one is born, the same cannot be said for homosexuals.

Which doesn't matter if it isn't the point of parallel any more than each being tall would be important.

As race and sexuality are very different, why should they be treated the same?

I really think I answered on this point in my last. The similarity is in the majority denying a minority a thing they feel entitled to and the justification or lack thereof for the disparity.

I tend to agree with you here. Indeed, the distinction between the races is manufactured. We may look aesthetically different, and that is how many have judged other races in the past; yet inside we are the same. That being said, race doesn't apply to the points I've been making much as you seem to think it does.

I haven't applied race to anything. I've noted that race is a great way to illustrate how the majority can determine the importance of a distinction and then use the distinction to deny the minority something they possess.

As you said, there is no objective proof that one is born a homosexual

I didn't say that. I think witness is objective proof, but it's not determinative. Until we can identify a gay gene it's informed speculation, but it makes sense to me, given my own predisposition as a heterosexual and knowing what could not be a consideration for me may and sometime is for others of my gender...mostly I wonder at why it's important to anyone whether or not it's genetic. I don't see the impact beyond my earlier note on the ease of contempt where the purely chosen sin is concerned.

I belive there is a lot more psychology involved in the development of homosexuality in someone's life. In my own case, I believe that abuse was the biggest contributing factor. In any case, having an inclination towards something is not justification acting upon that inclination and then demanding that others approve of one's actions.

I suspect abuse is at the root of many sexual deviations of various sorts. I'd agree that inclination isn't license as well. As for approval, that's not something anyone can really demand any more than a person can insist on regard. Right is another matter.

Indeed, different people seem to be predisposed towards different sins. Some struggle more with certain sins than others. For some it's alcoholism, for others lust, or stealing, or homosexuality etc. But that does not mean that one is genetically predisposed towards that sin.

In some cases it really does. There are people with a literal predisposition for addiction. And there are people who could smoke for years and just sit the thing on a table one day and that's that. No shakes, problems or qualms. I've seen both sides of that in my family.

Gays aren't the only one's saying they were 'born that way', and so if your argument above was applied to certain others groups the results could be truly terrifying.

Since I haven't argued from genetic predisposition, since that has nothing to do with any legal analysis informing right that I've ever made it really couldn't be applied. I'm a rational basis guy. I can make rational arguments against, say, pedophiles, that don't apply to homosexuals as a matter of law and objection by standard.

It goes to my point that many homosexuals are intolerant and wish to impose their views on Christians.

Some, surely. And some we both know would stone homosexuals to death.

People.

There's a lot disdain for Christianity as a whole within that community.

Seems likely given what Christianity has to say about their sexuality. It's not universal though, any more than every Christian approaches them in the same way. You're an example of one approach, Westboro another.

The problem is that it is not right, fair or just to be compelled to do something against your conscience.

Scribbling letters on a cake is against your conscience? Then don't and no one can fault you. But if you're in the business of scribbling then scribble. Unless they're suggesting your personal endorsement the act of writing and sale of that cake only becomes something more if you make it that in your head. And your right to do that shouldn't trump the person whose tax dollars make your business profitable being denied service.

It is an imposition by one group upon the other.

The imposition is in discrimination. The group being discriminated against just wants their cake.

Where do you draw the line? Or do you think they should be legally compelled to write or print absolutely anything?

Anything that's legal, unless the denial beyond that is equally applied. So if you don't draw sexually explicit images on cakes it doesn't matter who is asking for it.

Do you believe in the empowerment of sin? There is no comparison because of the reasons I have stated above. What you are arguing for now seems to be that those who choose to identify with a certain sin are less empowered and should become more empowered.

No, I'm arguing that the law is a rational animal, not an extension of your or any particular religious view absent a secular, rational justification, that discrimination isn't unreasonable where the standard is met. Right is like a gun, the morality of its use greatly depends on the person exercising it.

You are being forced if you are being told to do something you actively disagree with or face prosecution.

No, because you know the law and have a choice to engage in a profession subject to it or not.

What kind of a choice is that?

Said the man who watched a black man sipping a once white's only water fountain. I have to let him drink here? Eat here? Use the cotton picking bathroom???

Yep. Or go farm chickens.

Or are you suggesting that those who have deeply held Christian beliefs who may face this choice should just get out of business altogether?

No, I'm suggesting, have actually stated that they're creating the problem for themselves, that no one sees a cake and thinks, "That baker must be pro gay!" Or if they do they're being irrational.

So we do at least agree that homosexual activity is a sin?

Sure. I've said that almost as often as I've examined the laws designed to discriminate and found them insufficient in reason.

If that is the case, why are you defending it so vigorously?

I'm not. Not any more than my adamant defense of the Klan's right to march and assemble has any tangential relationship to my feeling about the filth they believe.

There's our right to act and what we do with it.

While my experience cannot constitute a rule, it can easily help shape one's views.

Experience necessarily does, though I'd hope a broader experience with methodology would temper the inclination to confuse the anecdote with a rule absent serious and methodologically sound support.

 

[Jedidiah]

are fornicating heterosexuals seeking societal approval?

are fornicating heterosexuals marching for their "rights"?

are fornicating heterosexuals forcing changes in elementary and secondary school curricula to teach the youth of america that their perversion is "normal"?

are fornicating heterosexuals demanding that bakers who happen to be Christian work against their consciences and create cakes for them celebrating their perversion?....

The answer is no, but the problem is, what if they were ? It wouldn't change that it's sin, but it would appear to change your implied argument here.

 

[Jedidiah]

No, you have a right to contract with the state in marriage, regardless of your gender or the gender of your mate. And you do care if that's violated...

Are you being slippery or something ? It's that bold part that's new. Before recently, I had "a right to contract with the state in marriage." Your slippery little qualifier there is new. The word marriage has been redefined. That's why I said what I did and I'm pretty sure you knew that, and I don't have any idea why you'd go to such lengths to obfuscate a rather obvious remark.

And yes, I do care if my right to marry is violated. But I don't even claim to have a right to marry another man, and I imagine that's how most of the 98.4% of Americans who are not LGBTQ feel, which might explain why there are so many who don't mind it being "violated," since it's a strained and invented "civil right" anyway.

...When rights only matter in numbers they cease to be rights at all...

Platitude. Red herring.

...I don't think that's true, unless you were bisexually inclined or not particularly gender inclined, depending on how you want to view it. In any event it doesn't really have much to do with the subject...

Has to do with the mutability of human sexual preference.

...No, if that were true we'd know that, as I suggested, it's true for some, a some I'd suspect were more closely identified as bisexual in orientation from the outset, at least by inclination...

Regarding "if that were true...it's true for some," what I meant was, if it's true for one single case, it establishes that it is mutable for humans. It goes down in the biology book as an observed fact, with words like, "Human sexual preference can change," even if it's qualified with words like, "Although it's only been observed to change in a tiny fraction of human beings." So, since it's mutable, that's different from if it's not.

Another platitude.

...I mentioned that as with alcoholism a minority of people are drawn to all sorts of things, predisposed to them. I've never understood what sort of victory is had in naming a thing genetic if the thing isn't desirable. And you won't get an argument from me about the morality of the question, which has nothing to do with the legal side of it.

People have a right to do all sorts of things that are sinful...

Yes they sure do, and that's not really what we're talking about; it's not what I'm talking about. I'm not ACW saying we should outlaw LGBTQ behavior, I'm saying there's a difference between lifting Prohibition, and issuing permits for public drunkenness to anybody who asks.

...I believe we can improve our conduct by finding our pleasure in the good...

That's a good position. Makes me think of, "...whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Amen.

...but we'll never be perfect and always require grace since any sin is one too many...

Until Kingdom come; so we're agreed here.

...Don't you think the scars were in place to help the apostles come to terms with the truth of the resurrection?

I don't know. You're hinting at "doubting Thomas." Could it be that His incorruptible flesh retained scars just for Thomas ? It's not impossible, I can't even say it's improbable. It prompted one of the Apostle John's Gospel's more famous exclamations, "My Lord and my God." Could it be ? Sure.

I don't have any doubt that John the Baptist's incorruptible body will have an attached head; I think we'll all be whole in Glory. But scars ? I don't know. It's just interesting is all.

 

[quip]

I can't argue with this ...

How so?...he hasn't even demonstrated that intolerance is bad..he only inferred that intolerance is bad if a Liberal is intolerant of Christian intolerance (which - I'm assuming - he's defending as "good") :dizzy:

So, which is it? Intolerance is bad, good...or only "bad" or "good" depending on which side of the aisle you choose to throw rotten fruit from?

Conclusion being: His deontological approach is either lacking consistency or a he's merely a hypocrite himself.

 

[Town Heretic]

Are you being slippery or something?

No, I think you're missing a point. I have no idea why, but let's see if we can hash it out.

It's that bold part that's new.

Right.

Before recently, I had "a right to contract with the state in marriage." Your slippery little qualifier there is new.

It's not mine. It's the state of the law in most jurisdictions now. A thing you can't help but be aware of.

You'd written:

It turns out, I also have "a civil right to marry another man."

There's the recognition and then,

I don't care that this latter civil right is violated, not in the least, because exercising this particular civil right is a sin.

I was responding to your off handed, "I don't care if" about someone else's right, so I framed it to demonstrate that you would and do actually care about the right, only not about the right of the minority in question to exercise it because you find the exercise objectionable in them. Not slippery, just responsive.

The word marriage has been redefined.

That sounds radical, but it's still the same contract with the state, the one I've never read people of faith decry when used by the atheist without a thought of or word to God. It has the same obligations and process of dissolution. In terms of contract it's the addition of a term in substitution. That's different, but the thing itself isn't changed, only the access to it has.

That's why I said what I did and I'm pretty sure you knew that, and I don't have any idea why you'd go to such lengths to obfuscate a rather obvious remark.

I didn't do anything of the sort. Hopefully the above clarifies my intent in relation to what you wrote.

And yes, I do care if my right to marry is violated.

Of course you would. I use would because your rights aren't being violated, denied, or in any form abrogated. That was a bit of my point. You don't care that others are denied that right. It's a bit different from your usage and the plainer truth.

But I don't even claim to have a right to marry another man, and I imagine that's how most of the 98.4% of Americans who are not LGBTQ feel, which might explain why there are so many who don't mind it being "violated,"

I live in one of the most conservative states in the Union and it's about 70/30 opposed to their having that right. Which means your number is high, but still a majority here and I'd bet we're toward the top of the list in agreement. But who expects the majority to care if a minority they mostly disdain are deprived of anything? I don't. It would run contrary to the history of human nature.

since it's a strained and invented "civil right" anyway.

That's a strained and invented dismissal.

Platitude. Red herring.

The truth, however common, is never a platitude. You spoke of the opinion of most people in relation to that exercise of right. My response was to note that when right is subject to or established by fiat, by numbers, it ceases to be right at all. Our founders knew that which is why we are a Republic. The red herring bit is equally errant since nothing I wrote was aimed at distracting, but instead confronted.

Has to do with the mutability of human sexual preference.

Alleged and mutability of some unknown quantity. Rather diminishes its impact. And it doesn't impact the point at law.

Regarding "if that were true...it's true for some," what I meant was, if it's true for one single case, it establishes that it is mutable for humans.

No, it's true for some. Say one person in a million contracted cancer. To say it is true that cancer is a certainty for humans is to mislead, if unintentionally. It's true for some. Sexuality may be mutable for some or it may simply be that it exists across a spectrum and that there are those who wouldn't consider and those who would or could.

I couldn't really particularly respond to the platitude bit since it wasn't attached to any particular line or supported in any particular fashion.

On the propensity for sin.

Yes they sure do, and that's not really what we're talking about; it's not what I'm talking about. I'm not ACW saying we should outlaw LGBTQ behavior, I'm saying there's a difference between lifting Prohibition, and issuing permits for public drunkenness to anybody who asks.

Where I tend to address the law and answer assertions made in relation to it. As I noted, any number of rights can be used to promote either sin or virtue. Marriage is one of them.

That's a good position. Makes me think of, "...whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Amen.

Always a pleasure to agree on something that fundamental and important in the Christian walk.

Until Kingdom come; so we're agreed here.

At least.

I don't know. You're hinting at "doubting Thomas."

I think he gets a bad rap on the point. I think the scars weren't just for Thomas. He may have simply been the more honest of the lot. It's obvious that Christ risen differed in appearance.

I don't have any doubt that John the Baptist's incorruptible body will have an attached head; I think we'll all be whole in Glory. But scars ? I don't know. It's just interesting is all.

I think a new body would only bear the imprint of the inhabitant, given our atoms will be God knows where.

 

[Eeset]

Those who have chosen Christianity should respect the rights of those who have chosen other beliefs.

 

[Rusha]

How so?...he hasn't even demonstrated that intolerance is bad..he only inferred that intolerance is bad if a Liberal is intolerant of Christian intolerance (which - I'm assuming - he's defending as "good") :dizzy:

So, which is it? Intolerance is bad, good...or only "bad" or "good" depending on which side of the aisle you choose to throw rotten fruit from?

Conclusion being: His deontological approach is either lacking consistency or a he's merely a hypocrite himself.

I didn't take his post in the same way you did. However, I will go ahead and state *my* view on this topic:

I see both sides as being equally intolerant, just on different issues.