Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[Blake]

how so, and where?

Matthew 5

17*“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18*For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished



Leviticus 20:13New Living Translation (NLT)

13*“If a man practices sexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

[Chinook]

it's yes or no. You're trying to walk the fence.

I'm starting to think you just aren't good at identifying these distinctions, man. My point is solid, and you apparently have missed it because you keep trying to put me in a dilemma. But it's a false dilemma, because it's not simply a matter of it being a choice. As I said, it's a matter of being concealable and that it's not based strongly (if at all) on heredity. It's also deniable, which for everyone but Clarence Thomas isn't true of being black.

Think about it this way: Let's say all gay people (or left-handed people) were forced into slavery. There'd be people who's parents weren't slaves and who's kids weren't slaves. The opposite is true for the free people. That's a critical difference in the discriminatory narrative that you're overlooking.

[Blake]

I'm starting to think you just aren't good at identifying these distinctions, man. My point is solid, and you apparently have missed it because you keep trying to put me in a dilemma. But it's a false dilemma, because it's not simply a matter of it being a choice. As I said, it's a matter of being concealable and that it's not based strongly (if at all) on heredity. It's also deniable, which for everyone but Clarence Thomas isn't true of being black.

Think about it this way: Let's say all gay people (or left-handed people) were forced into slavery. There'd be people who's parents weren't slaves and who's kids weren't slaves. The opposite is true for the free people. That's a critical difference in the discriminatory narrative that you're overlooking.

I think it is a simple matter of being a choice or not. I think there's enough scientific evidence to suggest it's not.

But nice false slavery analogy tho. The ability to conceal being gay is completely irrelevant.

[Chinook]

I think it is a simple matter of being a choice or not.

Then that reinforces my assertion that you're tone-deaf. It's as simple as that. You seem completely unable to understand the nature of discrimination. May as well be one of the people you're trying to make fun of.

[Blake]

Then that reinforces my assertion that you're tone-deaf. It's as simple as that. You seem completely unable to understand the nature of discrimination. May as well be one of the people you're trying to make fun of.

Yu're trying to make it a more complex issue than it is. I'll make fun of you for walking the fence and contradicting yourself tho

[Blake]

It's also an apt comparison, to me personally, since they are both partaken of due to choice.

Except that it's not

[Chinook]

Yu're trying to make it a more complex issue than it is. I'll make fun of you for walking the fence and contradicting yourself tho

There's no fence. Why you think that the discrimination is binary is beyond me. And that's even more so for why you think the dividing line is whether someone's difference is the result a choice or not. Not only is it easily demonstrated that you don't believe that, but the fact that you're asserting it does indeed suggest you don't understand how discrimination works, why it's appealing and what steps need to be taken to stop it. You're not in any better of an intellectual position than the people who choose to discriminate.

[mingus]

Except that it's not

Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and other religious & socially conservative people by and large, from my personal experience, accept the fact that people are born a certain way, or with certain gender desires/preferences. It's acting upon it that is immoral, to them. I see no problem in protecting that belief system. It's prejudice against a choice to commit sexual acts as opposed to the sexual orientation, and it's based on a sincere religious belief. I don't know what else to say.

[Blake]

There's no fence. Why you think that the discrimination is binary is beyond me. And that's even more so for why you think the dividing line is whether someone's difference is the result a choice or not. Not only is it easily demonstrated that you don't believe that, but the fact that you're asserting it does indeed suggest you don't understand how discrimination works, why it's appealing and what steps need to be taken to stop it. You're not in any better of an intellectual position than the people who choose to discriminate.

If it's not a choice because you're born that way, then it's discrimination the same as it is for skin color. It's really that simple.

You said at first that you agree it's not a choice but promptly back pedaled and now you're incoherently rambling while walking the fence.

[Blake]

Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and other religious & socially conservative people by and large, from my personal experience, accept the fact that people are born a certain way, or with certain gender desires/preferences. It's acting upon it that is immoral, to them. I see no problem in protecting that belief system. It's prejudice against a choice to commit sexual acts as opposed to the sexual orientation, and it's based on a sincere religious belief. I don't know what else to say.

Except that science is saying more and more it's not a choice. In this case, if science validates it, then religion has no say so.

[I. Hustle]

Missouri loves company

[mingus]

Except that science is saying more and more it's not a choice. In this case, if science validates it, then religion has no say so.

I already believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice. I have little doubt that science will back that up empirically in the future. Most people I've talked to believe it's not a choice, that it's a blend of environment and genes, and that we have little choice in regards to the gender(s) we're
sexually attracted to. That's not the point. The issue is acting out on it, sexually. Moreover, doing it without remorse/repentance. It's the behavior, not the inherent qualities of the person that matter here.

[clambake]

acting out sexually, without remorse/repentance is the problem, huh?

[mingus]

Do your gay friends agree that they chose to be gay? I'm anything but PC. Maybe you're just not great at metaphors. Whether you believe people are "born gay" or not, it's not something you just pick like a religion or a car.

And even if it was, these hyper-religious blowhards will congregate in church to talk about how anyone who is not a very specific denomination of the Baptist church is going to , but you can bet they'd make a cake for a wedding occurring in any of those other churches. Even, God forbid, a Catholic wedding. They'll bake a cake for a heterosexual couple who is on their fourth marriage each. By discriminating on gay weddings, they've arbitrarily decided which weddings they refuse to offer a product for.

And there's a difference between designing a product that says something you disagree with, and designing a product for people whose race or sexual orientation is outside of your comfort zone. Nobody's asking these people to make a cake with two guys ing. They're being asked to offer the same product they offer to everyone else to a couple who are the same gender.

In hindsight the metaphor could've been better, but I think my point was illustrated just fine by it if you've read what I've said after that post, and I've clarified where I'm coming from a little bit better.

I think you're for the most part right on on what you're saying in the second paragraph, but you're still disparaging an entire demonination based on a generalization. There's no room for sincerity of religiously held beliefs in your unfair analysis--they're all "blowhards", as you put it. That's not very fair.

And, they're not merely making something. They're assisting in something. In this case the celebration of a gay marriage. It's not hard to see why, according to their religious beliefs, that'd make the feel uneasy.

[mingus]

acting out sexually, without remorse/repentance is the problem, huh?

It's not a problem to me. Again, I'm not, sentimentally, on the side of these people. I'm not arguing on behalf of their views, but on their to have them protected.

So to answer your question: yes. At least according to pretty much every religious person I've talked to.

[clambake]

anyone that preaches the word should follow the word to the letter.


or forever keep their ing mouth shut.

[mingus]

anyone that preaches the word should follow the word to the letter.


or forever keep their ing mouth shut.

You're a step too slow. Christians already have that covered, since they believe they're born sinners, and so sin they will/must.

[clambake]

i was referring to all religions. they all have their "word".

[mingus]

i was referring to all religions. they all have their "word".

Yeah, I know what you meant, and I agree.

[Spurminator]

In hindsight the metaphor could've been better, but I think my point was illustrated just fine by it if you've read what I've said after that post, and I've clarified where I'm coming from a little bit better.

I think you're for the most part right on on what you're saying in the second paragraph, but you're still disparaging an entire demonination based on a generalization. There's no room for sincerity of religiously held beliefs in your unfair analysis--they're all "blowhards", as you put it. That's not very fair.

And, they're not merely making something. They're assisting in something. In this case the celebration of a gay marriage. It's not hard to see why, according to their religious beliefs, that'd make the feel uneasy.

I didn't mean to imply all religious people are blowhards, if that's what you mean (or Baptists, that was just an example). I'd be including myself and my family if that was the case. I do think there is a ridiculous amount of hypocrisy in what social ills Evangelical Christians choose to focus on and which ones they ignore, and I think this issue is a sterling example of that. The Jesus Christ I believe in, as a carpenter, would have made a table for a gay couple.

Evangelical fear of sexuality basically boils down to a fear that their kids are going to grow up and "choose" to be gay. It's a fear that, for some reason, far exceeds their fear that their kids will grow up to be date rapists, criminals, drunks or downright assholes.

Your argument is reasonable and I'm sorry I got belligerent. I held a pretty similar opinion 10 years ago. I still don't agree, but agree to disagree.

[Blake]

I already believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice. I have little doubt that science will back that up empirically in the future. Most people I've talked to believe it's not a choice, that it's a blend of environment and genes, and that we have little choice in regards to the gender(s) we're
sexually attracted to. That's not the point. The issue is acting out on it, sexually. Moreover, doing it without remorse/repentance. It's the behavior, not the inherent qualities of the person that matter here.

Their/your argument that it's morally wrong is baseless and lolsmh ridiculous, especially if we're all agreeing it's not a choice. Why should someone feel remorse for being born a certain way?

[clambake]

he's saying you can't change a fossil.

[Blake]

he's saying you can't change a fossil.

And arguing that it shouldn't have to change it's suthern Baptist ways

[mingus]

Their/your argument that it's morally wrong is baseless and lolsmh ridiculous, especially if we're all agreeing it's not a choice. Why should someone feel remorse for being born a certain way?

Man, I'm not sure what you are saying here, so forgive me. But if I'm reading it correctly, I think what you're saying in the first statement comes from not comprehending correctly what I have already explained here, either directly or by implication. You're second statement conflates (again) sexual acts & lust with which detractors disagree and sexual preference. You can repudiate the former without having to do so for the latter.

[Blake]

Man, I'm not sure what you are saying here, so forgive me. But if I'm reading it correctly, I think what you're saying in the first statement comes from not comprehending correctly what I have already explained here, either directly or by implication. You're second statement conflates (again) sexual acts & lust with which detractors disagree and sexual preference. You can repudiate the former without having to do so for the latter.

You brought up repentance and remorse. That implies gays are doing something wrong if they need those things.